These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2017-06-02 16:34:03 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
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.

SP sinks are really just isk and time sinks though, which already exist in getting another hull, set of subsystems, and modules.

The reality is that they want T3Cs to continue standing out over T2 ships so that more and more people use them, more and more people lose SP, more and more people purchase injectors, and more and more people purchase extractors to sell said injectors.

They're using gameplay mechanics as a way of making a profit instead of actually using them because they make sense. Why don't T3Ds have SP loss? They're T3 ships just the same as T3Cs. If it were truly a valid game mechanic, it'd apply to all T3 ships.
Kesthely
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#102 - 2017-06-02 19:21:49 UTC
Bromum Atom wrote:
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.


With the right combinations and skills the proposed strategic cruisers can have -50% heat damage already wich will make the effectiveness of it a bit higher. Also i don't believe that "limiting" the burst high dps to 1 1/2 minutes is bad.

Also with a 20% overheat bonus per level the figures would be 150 normal [172 overheated] vs 125 normal [162 overheated]

Advenat Bedala
Facehoof
#103 - 2017-06-03 00:14:40 UTC
Strait idea about T3C rig use.

Allowing them to unfit rigs feels like exception from exception and this is bad.
Rigs that cannot be unfit from T3C bad too

So no rigs no troubles
Just zero rig slots at T3C

It will reduce amount of work that should be done for balancing (lower variations for ships with insane number of variations)
will save from insane tank multiplication from rigs (more than 70%)
will allow to make insane things like +2 low/mid slots with less danger
will give T3C bit more feelings of different technology
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#104 - 2017-06-03 01:48:45 UTC
The crazy conspiracy theories about SP loss being maintained for infinite financial gain are just nuts. If CCP was that greedy for injector cash they would have given T3Ds SP loss. Nobody would have batted an eye.

Anyway the SP loss is no longer a good balancing factor. Just remove it and increase base hull cost instead.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Kenbones Valkyrie
Seventeenth Battalion
Honorable Third Party
#105 - 2017-06-03 06:52:29 UTC
So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive.
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#106 - 2017-06-03 11:59:55 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
The crazy conspiracy theories about SP loss being maintained for infinite financial gain are just nuts. If CCP was that greedy for injector cash they would have given T3Ds SP loss.

well t3cs had sp loss as a 'balancing' mechanism
people said it was dumb and made no sense
then t3ds came out with no sp loss because it was dumb and made no sense
then extractors came out
and t3cs get rebalanced and suddenly sp loss isnt dumb and makes sense
funny coincidence
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2017-06-03 12:14:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Novor Drethan
Kenbones Valkyrie wrote:
So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive.

I'm not. I'm seeing some absolutely terrible ideas, like giving the RR + links subsystems bonuses for turrets/launchers.

T3Cs are not meant to take on multiple roles at once. They are meant to switch between roles as needed.

This is insane, people wanting their T3Cs to be able to do everything all at the same time. They want the cloaking subsystem to also have great tank. They want the logi + links subsystems to also have good DPS. They also seem to want unique bonuses inherent to the hull -- a hull that's not meant to have a distinct role, but the ability to swap roles.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. All you guys seemingly want T3Cs to remain as oppressive as they are now, and you attempt to justify that with saying CCP would be removing "healthy playstyles" if they changed too much.

Yeah, those playstyles are not healthy. Isn't the entire point of the T3C rebalance to address how oppressive they are, and how much they overshadow the roles of T2 ships?

Certain playstyles need drawbacks. They need sacrifices. That's how all the T2 ships work. They give up something in order to do great at something else. T3C roles should be the same.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#108 - 2017-06-03 12:19:37 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
The crazy conspiracy theories about SP loss being maintained for infinite financial gain are just nuts. If CCP was that greedy for injector cash they would have given T3Ds SP loss. Nobody would have batted an eye.

Anyway the SP loss is no longer a good balancing factor. Just remove it and increase base hull cost instead.

Sure conspiracy Cool
here you go with Fozzman thoughts about it.
Quote:
Another is that SP sinks are something we consider valuable for a game like EVE. This was true before injectors and continues to be true after them. SP is our main form of progression and it's always a concern from our side that we won't be able to keep up with providing new things for people to do with it as fast as they gain it. Having a cost like this helps provide an outlet for SP from the entire ecosystem.

Healthy market means more money for CCP. Why only T3C? Why not T3D or even interceptors to keep market healthy?

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

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#109 - 2017-06-03 13:28:27 UTC
The logi/dps combo idea sounds like a spider tanking nightmare. Please no. Or lower the effective turrets to 4-5. I hope im not the only one whos worried they are comparing the damage a logi T3 can do with what a full on combat T3 can do.

And for the love of god, remove rigs completely. Makes their adaptability more fluid and keeps their power in check. Especially now they have so many slots.

Remove sp loss.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#110 - 2017-06-03 13:42:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Quote:
[18:50] ccp_fozzie One big one is that it's a form of cost that is unique and distinct from our other form of costs. Costs for ships can come in the form of minerals, moongoo, LP, ISK, special drops, and SP in the case of the T3Cs. In general we're looking to highlight and emphasize the differences between T3Cs and other ships rather than make them more similar.

I just wonder do you feel that about 750M (approximate cost of a skill injector) is an appropriate cost for losing a T3 ship?

I am anxious to see the V2 proposal for the ships, I do like the direction of the subsystems modifying the ship rather than defining everything. I have been saying that for years.

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

Toobo
Project Fruit House
#111 - 2017-06-03 13:47:33 UTC
TBH, putting in a game mechanic that brings financial gain obviously makes sense for any commercial company

Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!

Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2017-06-03 13:51:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Novor Drethan
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Quote:
[18:50] ccp_fozzie One big one is that it's a form of cost that is unique and distinct from our other form of costs. Costs for ships can come in the form of minerals, moongoo, LP, ISK, special drops, and SP in the case of the T3Cs. In general we're looking to highlight and emphasize the differences between T3Cs and other ships rather than make them more similar.

I just wonder do you feel that about 750M (approximate cost of a skill injector) is an appropriate cost for losing a T3 ship?

Just to add, what Fozzie said is complete, and excuse my language, bullshit.

The construction of T3Cs is already a unique process, and CCP is also thinking of adding "new faction-specific build components sourced from WH space" to that.

They're unique enough without the SP loss. CCP just doesn't want to give it up because they know adding it to other hulls would result in massive blowback, so they're fighting the easier fight by keeping it on the hulls that already have it.

Quote:
TBH, putting in a game mechanic that brings financial gain obviously makes sense for any commercial company

It makes sense for upper management to push, but it's insulting to see Fozzie come up with lame excuses as for why it helps contribute to "balance".
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#113 - 2017-06-03 13:52:32 UTC
Toobo wrote:
TBH, putting in a game mechanic that brings financial gain obviously makes sense for any commercial company

Then they could bring back clone costs, that removed a lot of SP from the game from players who forgot to upgrade there clones. The constantly increasing costs of an older clone also guided players to purchase more plex or grind more causing more instances for ships to be lost which in turn could also make it more desirable to purchase plex.

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

Lugh Crow-Slave
#114 - 2017-06-03 15:56:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Would be nice to see the passive tengue possible have less buffer when compared to the others but lower relative recharge time




Ofc I'm also slightly bothered that ccp used "passive" to describe sub systems geared at buffer i know they don't play they're game by they could try to use terms that are less misleading
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#115 - 2017-06-03 17:23:10 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Would be nice to see the passive tengue possible have less buffer when compared to the others but lower relative recharge time




Ofc I'm also slightly bothered that ccp used "passive" to describe sub systems geared at buffer i know they don't play they're game by they could try to use terms that are less misleading


Passive tanked anything are typically just buffer tanked ships with regen modules in place of damage for lows/rigs.
Active tanked ships rarely fit buffer as they are fitting reps in their place (occasionally 1 extender to save you from alpha).

So I fail to see the problem. If a passive shield tank didn't fit buffer they would have crap all for peak regen, and their tank would be so thin a single alpha could quickly send them sub 30% (break your tank).
Kenbones Valkyrie
Seventeenth Battalion
Honorable Third Party
#116 - 2017-06-03 21:30:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenbones Valkyrie
Novor Drethan wrote:
Kenbones Valkyrie wrote:
So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive.

I'm not. I'm seeing some absolutely terrible ideas, like giving the RR + links subsystems bonuses for turrets/launchers.

T3Cs are not meant to take on multiple roles at once. They are meant to switch between roles as needed.

This is insane, people wanting their T3Cs to be able to do everything all at the same time. They want the cloaking subsystem to also have great tank. They want the logi + links subsystems to also have good DPS. They also seem to want unique bonuses inherent to the hull -- a hull that's not meant to have a distinct role, but the ability to swap roles.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. All you guys seemingly want T3Cs to remain as oppressive as they are now, and you attempt to justify that with saying CCP would be removing "healthy playstyles" if they changed too much.

Yeah, those playstyles are not healthy. Isn't the entire point of the T3C rebalance to address how oppressive they are, and how much they overshadow the roles of T2 ships?

Certain playstyles need drawbacks. They need sacrifices. That's how all the T2 ships work. They give up something in order to do great at something else. T3C roles should be the same.


That's not what has been said at all. The discussion was for there to be some un-bonused turrets/launchers on the logi subsystem. Also with the resist nerf the effective tank on all the T3Cs will be reduced.

At the end of the day, no matter how much the T3Cs are nerfed it wont fix how bad most the HACs are or how little the other T2 cruisers are because there are better T1/Pirate ships that fill those roles. On the other had there are some roles that only the T3Cs fill and if are nerfed to ineffectiveness then that style of game play will have been effectively removed from the game.
Cade Windstalker
#117 - 2017-06-03 23:11:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Novor Drethan wrote:
Kenbones Valkyrie wrote:
So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive.

I'm not. I'm seeing some absolutely terrible ideas, like giving the RR + links subsystems bonuses for turrets/launchers.

T3Cs are not meant to take on multiple roles at once. They are meant to switch between roles as needed.

This is insane, people wanting their T3Cs to be able to do everything all at the same time. They want the cloaking subsystem to also have great tank. They want the logi + links subsystems to also have good DPS. They also seem to want unique bonuses inherent to the hull -- a hull that's not meant to have a distinct role, but the ability to swap roles.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. All you guys seemingly want T3Cs to remain as oppressive as they are now, and you attempt to justify that with saying CCP would be removing "healthy playstyles" if they changed too much.

Yeah, those playstyles are not healthy. Isn't the entire point of the T3C rebalance to address how oppressive they are, and how much they overshadow the roles of T2 ships?

Certain playstyles need drawbacks. They need sacrifices. That's how all the T2 ships work. They give up something in order to do great at something else. T3C roles should be the same.


T3Cs have always had an element of fitting multiple sub-roles under the primary one, and these changes very clearly continue that. If they wanted to hard-restrict T3Cs to one role at a time they'd have either reduced the number of subsystem slots further (something like Primary/Defensive/Propulation, with current Offensive+Utility rolled into Primary) or they'd have gone with the T3D's mode switching scheme.

Nothing anywhere in this suggests that T3Cs are meant to swap roles on the fly in any significant capacity.

If you go back and look at what CCP have said about T3Cs and T3 vs T2 the whole point of T3s is that you give up a little effect in exchange for versatility. If T3Cs can only fit for absolutely one thing at a time then they're directly competing with the various T2 hulls and since they're more expensive they're now either worthless or OP, which is bad.
Demica Diaz
SE-1
#118 - 2017-06-03 23:32:30 UTC
Finally, cant wait to see new T3's it will be either fun or I uninstall the game. Lol But Id like to say that I do not like rigs on T3. Too much hassle even if you could remove em without destroying. I would prefer T3s be completely rigless.
Blade Darth
Room for Improvement
Good Sax
#119 - 2017-06-04 02:53:54 UTC
Cut the drone bonus from the Legion (it's not gonna be a drone boat with 50mbit anyway) and shift it more towards missiles. 6 launcher, application bonus or something. Atm. its lazors + missiles and drones (sort of). Too much.

Proteus, similar story. Secondary weapon thing, both blaster and drone part feel.... incomplete. Since the Tengu also can use blasters, go full drone on the Prot....

Actually drones could be the primary on Proteus. It's a gallente boat after all.
And drones instead of missiles on the Legion as secondary, it would balance the primary/secondary theme for all hulls. At least for missiles and drones.
As it is now 3 can use missiles (2.5 since Legion bonus doesn't match the others) and only 1 drones (1.5 counting legion)
Gustav Mannfred
Summer of Mumuit
Remember Mumuit
#120 - 2017-06-04 09:56:24 UTC
Any plans to allow T3 again to enter DED 3 and DED 4 sites? back the days this change happened, nothing changed, nowadays gilas and hacs are more popular than T3.

T3 are cruisers and should be able to enther any site where cruisers can enter

i'm REALY miss the old stuff. 

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183