These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#261 - 2017-06-18 04:58:13 UTC
Having the drone bay (not bandwidth) as part of the hull makes sense in that if you swap offensive subs to a non drone carrier, you suddenly have to stash a huge amount of drones in cargo.

9 highslot proteus might be entertaining til it crashes your client repeatedly. if its workable, sign me up.

Trying to tie exploration to a terribad tank isn't fun, it's annoying, re: Stratios
Since exploration bonuses have zero weight in the system just make 'em hull bonuses instead. It does after all fit with the theme T3c's were created with originally.

HAC's and Recons: both have issues and need work, trying to balance against them while they're still dysfunctional is kind of pointless, seems like we need a slow burn focus on fixing T2 cruisers as a whole. This is also beyond the scope of the current project.

Been waiting for this rebalance for years guys, let's not shove it too far the other direction, I'd rather not be stuck driving donut ships around hisec til 2021.
Siobhan MacLeary
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#262 - 2017-06-18 05:46:01 UTC
Public access to the WIP spreadsheet seems to have been revoked.

Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave

Bromum Atom
Outplayed.
#263 - 2017-06-18 07:03:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Bromum Atom
Quote:
5% bonus to the benefits of overhearing armor and shield hardeners.

This bonus work good on shield ship, you can fit 1-2 Adaptive Invulnerability Field overheat them and get effect of bonus.
But at armor ship with redused base resistance this bonus is usefull only at owertanked ships with 4 Armor Hardeners.
Can reactive armore hardener recieve this bonus?
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#264 - 2017-06-18 09:31:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Dior Ambraelle
Ele Rebellion wrote:
@ CCP Fozzie

3 Midslots for proteus!?! This will completely kill it.

I understand reducing the tank of the tackle proteus. But to cut it down to 3 midslots removes any effective role it could have as a tackler. I was ok with the original plan to go 7/4/6 layout (even though I didn't like it)

Also you are proposing a 9 Highslot layout with those subsystems in the link above. Did you realize this?

I think the localized injectors subsystem supposed to have 1 mid instead of 1 high.
But an explorer configuration still only has 3 mids which is really not enough. I think all covert reconfiguration subsystems should have 2 mid slots +1 defense slot.
The main factions have no specialized explorer cruisers, and even with (probably) weaker tank than the T3Cs the Stratios with 5 mid slots is still infinitely better, while being cheaper, easier to obtain and faster to learn.

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.

Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#265 - 2017-06-18 09:38:02 UTC
zbaaca wrote:
it looks like ccp dont hear THAT CALDARI DONT LIKE STUPID KINETIC LOCK

Why don't we distribute all missile types equally by the way?
Amarr: EM and thermal
Caldari: thermal and kinetic
Minmatar: kinetic and explosive

I know, Caldari is the missile faction, but the other 2 are using missiles quite often, and this would fit the factions' damage pattern 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.

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#266 - 2017-06-18 10:38:27 UTC
it would be so much easier too just bake all the stats and slots into the hulls instead of each sub adding/subtracting slots having different stats/drones etc...

subs should just be about bonuses and nothing else with all changes in the bonuses/traits section.. it would be so much less of a headache...

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

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#267 - 2017-06-18 11:22:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Why did the Proteus Drone synthesis projector take such a large hit to the drone bay size? 175m I very small for having 100mbps

Edit: I don't see much of a reason to use a Deimos over a Proteus still based on the current proposal.

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

Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#268 - 2017-06-18 12:55:12 UTC
Align time is too high. From instawarping to BS align time?

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

Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2017-06-18 13:47:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
What? So the drone Proteus that currently hardly gets used is going to be made worse? Good job guys!

Give it specific bonuses to medium drones only, to make it unique.
Uriam Khanid
New Machinarium Corporation
#270 - 2017-06-18 14:37:26 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:

Why don't we distribute all missile types equally by the way?
Amarr: EM and thermal
Caldari: thermal and kinetic
Minmatar: kinetic and explosive


Big smileagree. may be something different:
Amarr - damage and RoF (propose sub)
Minimatar - only RoF (proposed sub)
Caldari - only damage (currently only RoF plus kinetic damage)
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#271 - 2017-06-18 22:23:06 UTC
Uriam Khanid wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:

Why don't we distribute all missile types equally by the way?
Amarr: EM and thermal
Caldari: thermal and kinetic
Minmatar: kinetic and explosive


Big smileagree. may be something different:
Amarr - damage and RoF (propose sub)
Minimatar - only RoF (proposed sub)
Caldari - only damage (currently only RoF plus kinetic damage)

Why not give them completely different bonuses then?
Caldari - damage bonus: direct upgrade on the missiles
Amarr - explosion velocity/radius bonus: better targeting system
Minmatar - RoF bonus: simply shooting faster

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.

Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#272 - 2017-06-19 02:11:41 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
What? So the drone Proteus that currently hardly gets used is going to be made worse? Good job guys!

Give it specific bonuses to medium drones only, to make it unique.


The Gila would like a word with you.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#273 - 2017-06-19 03:40:12 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:

Why not give them completely different bonuses then?
Caldari - damage bonus: direct upgrade on the missiles
Amarr - explosion velocity/radius bonus: better targeting system
Minmatar - RoF bonus: simply shooting faster


ehm...

application > pure damage . i dont see how caldari will be more attractive , or even attractive at all , then amarr with that sets of bonuses

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

JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2017-06-19 08:39:44 UTC
seems no one is happy with the proposed changes so far
well at least loki is still looking decent
DeadDuck
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#275 - 2017-06-19 09:46:31 UTC
JC Mieyli wrote:
seems no one is happy with the proposed changes so far
well at least loki is still looking decent


Maybe thats a sign they are actually making a good job Smile
Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#276 - 2017-06-19 10:24:01 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
What? So the drone Proteus that currently hardly gets used is going to be made worse? Good job guys!

Give it specific bonuses to medium drones only, to make it unique.


The Gila would like a word with you.


Fair point. I was thinking unique in the role of an armour drone boat.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#277 - 2017-06-19 10:48:43 UTC
I'm worried recons are going to be obsolete.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#278 - 2017-06-19 11:00:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
I'm worried recons are going to be obsolete.

They don't want to touch the recon ships for some reason.
And the keep pushing the same 4 e-war systems while they have 7. Or 8 if we count remote sensor boosting too. It should be really easy to not make them overlap.
I still think they should make the recon ships able to actually recon instead of being sneaky e-war platforms, by giving them level-based probe and d-scan 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.

Chan'aar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#279 - 2017-06-19 11:14:26 UTC
Loki Core systems seem to have a missmatch.

The PG one (Augmented Nuclear Reactor) has a 20% role bonus to PG output.

The CPU one (Dissolution Sequencer) has NO bonus to cpu output ?

This does not seem right to me and makes fits very very tight.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#280 - 2017-06-19 11:35:34 UTC
Chan'aar wrote:
Loki Core systems seem to have a missmatch.

The PG one (Augmented Nuclear Reactor) has a 20% role bonus to PG output.

The CPU one (Dissolution Sequencer) has NO bonus to cpu output ?

This does not seem right to me and makes fits very very tight.



Probably intentional. T3C have had a really big problem with being far too generous with fitting.