These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#181 - 2017-06-09 05:59:29 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
T3C are and will be special (like overpriced, and SP loss) that's why they get special abilities.


They aren't that expensive if you consider what you get out of them.

Oh but they will be soon. Honestly I didn't know they are so dirt cheap right now. I bought mine 150 for hull, 50 mil for subs.

baltec1 wrote:
See this is why I want SP loss to go, people just use it as an excuse to make them overpowered.

but everybody want to see SP loss go, no matter if they want the hulls overpowered or not. The idea of delaying high skill usage of them sailed away with SP injectors.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Blazemonger
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#182 - 2017-06-09 08:42:53 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
God, where to start? Neither covert cloak nor nullification is required for exploration.


The reason for choosing aT3C is that it offers the option. If I am forced to refit in space I am at a considerable disadvantage as passing through a gate camp, even when cloaked and nullified, I am know to be flying a Tengu. Bring out the combat probes and locate me while refitting.. BLAP..

So yes, there is good reason for needing/using cloak/nullification in an exploration fit.

By your reasoning, fitting cloak and Nullification should prevent any other role, including hunter/scout/cyno, and require an in system refit for everything.


While the discussion and comments here are somewhat removing my fear of losing the ability to run the sites I do to make my income in game I am still not convinced this will work out for us explorers. The fact that using cloak directly affect my ability to tank is a main concern for me.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#183 - 2017-06-09 09:50:05 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
zbaaca wrote:

jump freights .


Probably a fair argument, citadels have made getting them around virtually risk free.


zbaaca wrote:
ceptors to ignore 95% of camps .


To do so they have to be incredibly fragile which balances it out.

zbaaca wrote:

bombers to choose when and where they want do die .


As a bomber pilot this isn't true. Getting through a gatecamp is not risk free.

zbaaca wrote:

blops that jumps , curse and friends to choose engagements . etc .


Way more vulnerable when using a gate though, T3C can also be bridged.


Bromum Atom wrote:

SP is just ISK. By this logic: people just use hude price of Supercarriers as an excuse to make them overpowered.


Supercarriers have been nerfed several times in the past. The logic is sound, SP loss in today's EVE doesn't make much sense as older players either don't care about retraining the skills for a few days or can simply toss isk at the problem.
Bromum Atom
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#184 - 2017-06-09 10:12:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Supercarriers have been nerfed several times in the past.

Carriers ans supercarriers war greatly boosted during last year. This update with increased sig and mass of t3 and next increasement cost of pirate BS will boost carriers to. And now you told about t3 should be nerfed greatly.
baltec1 wrote:

Supercarriers have been nerfed several times in the past. The logic is sound, SP loss in today's EVE doesn't make much sense as older players either don't care about retraining the skills for a few days or can simply toss isk at the problem.

I pay 1bil ISK every time I lost t3. Its not enough addition price for t3 cruser? Players should feel real pain when lost it?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#185 - 2017-06-09 10:39:46 UTC
Bromum Atom wrote:

Carriers ans supercarriers war greatly boosted during last year. This update with increased sig and mass of t3 and next increasement cost of pirate BS will boost carriers to. And now you told about t3 should be nerfed greatly.


Fighter nerf incoming. Super and carriers just got nerfed.


Bromum Atom wrote:

I pay 1bil ISK every time I lost t3. Its not enough addition price for t3 cruser? Players should feel real pain when lost it?


Depending on where T3C end up in terms of balance with the other cruisers a sound argument can be made to reduce the isk cost.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2017-06-09 12:55:31 UTC
Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here.

Rare, pirate faction subsystems.

One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only.
Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#187 - 2017-06-09 13:01:54 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here.

Rare, pirate faction subsystems.

One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only.
Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus.


It'[s already a clusterfuck to balance with locked racial subs. Adding more is an option only if you want an bigger mess.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#188 - 2017-06-09 13:36:40 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here.

Rare, pirate faction subsystems.

One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only.
Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus.


That sounds both really fun and HILARIOUSLY BROKEN hahaha

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
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#189 - 2017-06-09 14:58:40 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here.

Rare, pirate faction subsystems.

One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only.
Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus.


That sounds both really fun and HILARIOUSLY BROKEN hahaha

It sounds like they heading in a direction where the subsystems have a lesser effect on the hull than in the past, where they simply modify the base stats rather than each subsystem adding specific stats.
If this is truly how they are going to handle them, then pirate faction subs are absolutely possible without too many balance issues.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Eustise
Perkone
Caldari State
#190 - 2017-06-09 16:42:50 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
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).


That's definitely a sore point for both PvE and PvP and one which i'll push forward to get more of, i'm hoping 100m3 extra roughly for all hulls. Especially since cloaking moved to defensive, even if we /were/ to switch, it'd be nice to throw the 100m3 cloak in the hold instead of being forced to leave a depo down or bookmark a can.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#191 - 2017-06-09 19:40:40 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here.

Rare, pirate faction subsystems.

One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only.
Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus.


That sounds both really fun and HILARIOUSLY BROKEN hahaha

You would put Mordu's subsystem with warp scramble range bonus on your Tengu, and you would love it. You know this too.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
BESTER bm
Doomheim
#192 - 2017-06-09 19:44:07 UTC
Cargo space will certainly be an issue as in many case we will have to carry multiple mods and subs here.

Also a major worry and concern still is the sugestion for base resists to be reduced to T3D levels.. I see no logic in this and it will impact explorers greatly as they will _need_ these resists and as it stands will not be able to buff them without losing the cloak.

What can be the reasoning for a cruiser to have the same resists as it's 'counterpart' Destroyer.. It would seem logical it is an improvement over it's smaller brother.
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#193 - 2017-06-09 23:25:43 UTC
Cargo has always been an issue with T3's, with needing to carry more equipment, a depot, and sufficient ammo, these should all be boosted to the 500-700m3 range. Alternately giving them a deployed mode that simulates the depot and a 300m3 or so module/ammo bay would also work.

Is the highsec site ban going to be lifted finally?

I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay.

on the fence about unbonused weapons on the logi subs but could be interesting.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2017-06-10 09:48:21 UTC
One more thing I would like to leave here: at the end of October last year I made this thread about how I think the T3Cs could be redone.
The conversation didn't go far and the thread was locked due to inactivity, most likely because the idea is a huge wall of text.

The reasons I bring it up again is because:
- it has become relevant
- some of my ideas are in the current concept, like removing the cloak from the offensive subsystems and putting the logi and command modules there

Maybe now that it's actually happening, people will take a few minutes to at least read it, even if it's really long.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#195 - 2017-06-10 13:09:56 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
One more thing I would like to leave here: at the end of October last year I made this thread about how I think the T3Cs could be redone.
The conversation didn't go far and the thread was locked due to inactivity, most likely because the idea is a huge wall of text.

The reasons I bring it up again is because:
- it has become relevant
- some of my ideas are in the current concept, like removing the cloak from the offensive subsystems and putting the logi and command modules there

Maybe now that it's actually happening, people will take a few minutes to at least read it, even if it's really long.

They are in process of a second pass on the ships, also I don't see too many similarities between current and your proposal, and almost even less with what is being suggested.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#196 - 2017-06-10 18:38:34 UTC
Mhari Dson wrote:

I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay.

caldari and drones... do you even belive in your words ?Lol

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

Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#197 - 2017-06-10 21:27:15 UTC
zbaaca wrote:
Mhari Dson wrote:

I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay.

caldari and drones... do you even belive in your words ?Lol

Ibis, Bantam, Griffin, Heron, Moa, Blackbird, Osprey, Caracal, Drake, Ferox, Scorpion, Raven, Rokh - half of the frigates, all cruisers, the combat battlecruisers and all of the battleships have drone bays, and these are just the T1 versions.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#198 - 2017-06-10 22:42:19 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
zbaaca wrote:
Mhari Dson wrote:

I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay.

caldari and drones... do you even belive in your words ?Lol

Ibis, Bantam, Griffin, Heron, Moa, Blackbird, Osprey, Caracal, Drake, Ferox, Scorpion, Raven, Rokh - half of the frigates, all cruisers, the combat battlecruisers and all of the battleships have drone bays, and these are just the T1 versions.

Old tengu only had drones on 1 sub, I don't see why the new one should get more drones.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#199 - 2017-06-11 00:00:34 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
zbaaca wrote:
Mhari Dson wrote:

I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay.

caldari and drones... do you even belive in your words ?Lol

Ibis, Bantam, Griffin, Heron, Moa, Blackbird, Osprey, Caracal, Drake, Ferox, Scorpion, Raven, Rokh - half of the frigates, all cruisers, the combat battlecruisers and all of the battleships have drone bays, and these are just the T1 versions.

Old tengu only had drones on 1 sub, I don't see why the new one should get more drones.

Drones are always good to have, even if only as combat utility or for salvage. A full flight of small drones are probably not necessary though, I think 10 mbit and 10 m3 bay would be enough.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2017-06-11 01:10:55 UTC
That seems to fit with the norm for caldari cruisers, looking through the ships it appeared at first glance only one had a full flight of light drones. Though we have to wait until the new stat sheets are released before we have an opportunity to voice our opinions.

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