These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#121 - 2017-06-04 10:20:01 UTC
Tengu has no bonus to RLML?

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

Bromum Atom
Outplayed.
#122 - 2017-06-04 11:04:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Bromum Atom
Now is't possible to fit combat probes on t3 in battle fit (by cost of 1 slot usually). With this update its not possible. SadSad Why?
Alessienne Ellecon
Doomheim
#123 - 2017-06-04 11:29:11 UTC
"Team Five O" wrote:

Dual tank bonuses for the Loki


The minmaxers are going to love this. Isn't dual tanking supposed to be a huge no-no?

*sits back and waits for the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth*

"CONCORD are the space cops. If you attack someone in a high-security solar system, CONCORD will commit police brutality." - Encyclopedia Dramatica

If EVE is a PvP game, then Anti-Ganking is emergent gameplay.

Lugh Crow-Slave
#124 - 2017-06-04 11:51:19 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
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).



Because shields very well can and do fit buffer differently than shields a buffer onyx is fit and used very differently than a passive onyx same with the chimera. A passive will have far higher peak recharge but much lower buffer. Onyx buffer 148-200kehp with 800-2kehp/s recharge vs a passive 80-130kehp with 3k-6kehp/s recharge.


Not to mention armor simply can't passive tank.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#125 - 2017-06-04 11:53:56 UTC
Alessienne Ellecon wrote:
"Team Five O" wrote:

Dual tank bonuses for the Loki


The minmaxers are going to love this. Isn't dual tanking supposed to be a huge no-no?

*sits back and waits for the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth*


Duel tanking is not a no no. That is something told to newbros because 99% of the time that is the rule. This isn't a naff thing as by the time they know enough about the game to figure this out they understand why the few fits that did use it work. It's similar to how newbros were told every fit must have a dcu before they were rebalance
Lugh Crow-Slave
#126 - 2017-06-04 11:57:03 UTC
So the ecm bonus on the tengue my math is kinda crap when it comes to multiple bonuses and stacking penalties but my attempts show it may be a bit to strong. This would not be an issue if 100% jams were removed but worth how it is and the heat reduction i can see these locking down small gangs of t1 ships
Sterling Blades
Windstalker Security Corp
United Neopian Federation
#127 - 2017-06-04 12:48:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Sterling Blades
Having looked back over the Loki offensive bonuses, it makes me happy that I'll be able to fly a drone flight, even if an absolute minimal one, if they don't pull the drone bay from the current offensive system revisions. Overall, with the exception of the missile based secondary weapon subsystem revision on the loki actually making missile fits decently viable, the rest are mostly in line with current offensive loki configs that I've run.

I also read the footnote at the far bottom of that google doc spreadsheet about most offensive systems across the board probably being too good, and already am feeling jitters about them likely pulling the small dronebays out of the loki revisions entirely. Hopefully it stays though. The little buggers are useful distractions and utility tools.

Edit: additionally, has there been any word about the future outlook on T3 cargohold size as yet?

The gods are out there. They watch us. They guide, they manipulate. We rally behind the ones we adore, and rain fire against those who rally behind the ones we hate. The question now is, to whom does your allegiance fall behind, dear Empyreans?

Scath Bererund
The Suicide Kings
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#128 - 2017-06-04 13:21:43 UTC
No hacking and scan probe bonus any more?
Bromum Atom
Outplayed.
#129 - 2017-06-04 13:25:58 UTC
Scath Bererund wrote:
No hacking and scan probe bonus any more?

Only with covert-sub. Sad
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#130 - 2017-06-04 13:59:13 UTC
Sterling Blades wrote:
I also read the footnote at the far bottom of that google doc spreadsheet about most offensive systems across the board probably being too good

yeah not sure why the footnote says that
they dont really look that good to me
well proteus is good but its gallente so its expected
loki looks good but still projectiles
tengu and legion look crap

Mr Floydy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#131 - 2017-06-05 10:51:49 UTC
Blade Darth wrote:
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.

I'm torn on this. Really comes down to some other stats to whether it's really usable.

One one hand 50mbit is pretty rubbish on it's own, but that set of drones plus something like 500dps from missiles that's a whole lot of pain the ship could put out. Considering you can get 8 low slots on the Legion having 4 damage mods to boost both missile and drone dps is definitely achievable.
Geanos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#132 - 2017-06-05 12:19:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Geanos
From the dev blog: "The current state of T3 Cruisers is unsustainable from a technical graphics perspective"

You might have considered it, but anyway, here it goes: what if the T3's would be a single racial hull with hardpoints for each subsystem? And each subsystem would add some extra antennas, different nozzles for the engines etc., just like T2's have extra graphical assets vs T1's. This could open up skinning for T3's.

Another (probably silly) idea worth exploring would to make the strategic cruisers be like a Gnosis, with a blanked of roles / slot layout and make each subsystem to behave like a specialized rig that add / removes bonuses and fitting slots / hardpoints. This could open up interesting possibilities, for example like not fitting a prop subsystem in order to get an extra fitting slot somewhere. To make it easier for balance you could remove rig slots altogether.
Kesthely
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#133 - 2017-06-05 14:09:25 UTC
I don't think you understand, probably the biggest limiting factor for the amount of modules and combinations is due because of the art department. They need to visual rework 48 combinations.

This means that the arguments of "add another combination" is virtually undoable in the timeframe they want to release it. For game development and balance its also that they are balancing 48 ships at the same time. Wich is twice the amount of Unique ship bonus combinations than there are TII cruiser hulls.

This combined with the unique versatility with Strategic cruisers might make this the most diffficult balance pass since they've decided to step away from tiercide. As a first draft, i'm reasonably content with the proposed changes. The dps total seems a bit high but i've posted previously an option about that already. Hopefully the'll have a working format to release in Juli, looking forward to it.

Geanos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#134 - 2017-06-05 15:33:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Geanos
Humm, it seems that the graphical part needs a better explanation. As I see it, at the moment the T3 hull is just an empty placeholder where you fit different subsystems, each with his own model. So even if you reduce the number of subsystems you still have a lot of graphical combinations. This also means that we'll probably never get T3 skins.

But if you replace that empty placeholder with an actual ship hull and make the subsystems change the look of some small elements like nozzles, antennas etc., the things would get easier for the art department. For example, one could save a lot of work if he would make the weapon subsystem be like a carbon fiber black strip on the hull and you only need to change the number of weapon hardpoints. Another example: it would be like a LEGO ship on which you don't need to change the whole back of the ship (which is a lot of pieces and work to fit everything), but instead you only change the pieces for engine nozzles. You could think at the new T3 to be like an unfitted ship with hardpoints, but instead of placing turrets on those hardpoints you would place subsystems.

You would end up with having to maintain only 4 hull models (which is easier to skin) and the small graphical elements that would be the subsystems.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#135 - 2017-06-06 13:31:28 UTC
tengu 12 eff launchers vs loki 10

loki have exp vel 25% + rlml bonus while tengu plain stupid kinetic damage . insert falceplam here .

maybe add instead kinetic some exp rad bonus ? with current rof bonus it' will have about 9.6 launcers but superior application (well maybe crank up rof up to 10 effective) .

yet i still doubt that it will massacre small target like loki will do with rlml bonuses , but will make hml valiable again

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

Catherine Laartii
E.C.H.O.
Warped Intentions
#136 - 2017-06-06 15:59:34 UTC
In regards to discussions about tengu/loki missile subs, why not have the tengu focus more on application, and the loki for raw damage?

Ex: Tengu gets 10-15% damage per level, 5% bonus to missile explo radius, and 10% bonus to missile velocity

Loki gets 7.5% bonus to launcher firing rate and 5% bonus to explosive damage per level, but only to HAMs/heavies. The paper dps on the loki is higher, but applies worse than the tengu.

Application bonuses for weapons are more easily compensated for on a loki since generally it has more lowslots available, and its shield resist profile is more forgiving. Or, if you are running an armor fit, running missile guidance enhancers and/or tracking enhancers. In either case, setting up missile offensive bonuses like that between the two would go well with each of the ships' bonuses and layouts. I could see the full armor missile loki seeing good use in conjunction with the webs, and the missile tengu being spectacularly good with heavy missiles.
Catherine Laartii
E.C.H.O.
Warped Intentions
#137 - 2017-06-06 16:02:57 UTC
Also, I think the free rig swapping ability should be compensated for with slashing calibration size by 50-100 points.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#138 - 2017-06-06 16:19:55 UTC  |  Edited by: zbaaca
Catherine Laartii wrote:
In regards to discussions about tengu/loki missile subs, why not have the tengu focus more on application, and the loki for raw damage?

Ex: Tengu gets 10-15% damage per level, 5% bonus to missile explo radius, and 10% bonus to missile velocity

Loki gets 7.5% bonus to launcher firing rate and 5% bonus to explosive damage per level, but only to HAMs/heavies. The paper dps on the loki is higher, but applies worse than the tengu.

Application bonuses for weapons are more easily compensated for on a loki since generally it has more lowslots available, and its shield resist profile is more forgiving. Or, if you are running an armor fit, running missile guidance enhancers and/or tracking enhancers. In either case, setting up missile offensive bonuses like that between the two would go well with each of the ships' bonuses and layouts. I could see the full armor missile loki seeing good use in conjunction with the webs, and the missile tengu being spectacularly good with heavy missiles.



in '12 ccp castrated HML by about 10% of dmg (5% they returned lol) and 12% exp rad , so about 25% of applied damage . since then hml become wastly unpopular

so 25% of exp rad might become too op .

i'd start by about 3% exp + 7.5% rof AND 1% to hml\ham damage thus granting 10 eff launchers and kinda old application and 10% velocity

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

Bromum Atom
Outplayed.
#139 - 2017-06-06 17:04:09 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Also, I think the free rig swapping ability should be compensated for with slashing calibration size by 50-100 points.

Rig swapping is useless!
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#140 - 2017-06-06 17:15:53 UTC
Something that a lot of people may not have noticed that i feel needs to be addressed (if it hasnt already). Cargo space, loki especially had terrible cargo space (sub 300m3). If you want a decent missile loki, it needs to have enough cargo space for its ammo, paste, boosters as needed.

Lets make sure T3Cs get at least equivalent cargo as t3ds (for whatever dumb reason t3ds got so much cargo for a dessie).