These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
BESTER bm
Doomheim
#381 - 2017-06-22 16:33:02 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Edit: Visuals are bull**** btw. Where is iconic Tengu beak?


This very much yes!

It's a shame and so bad I have actually decided to with immediate effect stop using the Tengu and ignore any sites that may require it. I am extracting the skills and selling the ships now that hey are still worth something. I also am biomassing two toons alltogether as they have no more use for me since they were specifically trained and used to run Sleeper caches sold to me. If this means I need to further reduce my game accounts I will as I am at the point I will not spend any RL money to plex accounts.

The ship is just nerfed to the point it's not good for anything but pewpew and even then it's lackluster and has virtually no reason for existing anymore. A mentioned, it's now worse than the Stratios.
BESTER bm
Doomheim
#382 - 2017-06-22 16:36:30 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
will they look the same as they do now or will they be visually reworked given that would essentially mean part of the cruiser hulls would be literally missing?


They will be reworkede to make it easier to apply skins which you can buy for plex only initially. It's all about the benjamins..
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#383 - 2017-06-22 18:01:22 UTC
BESTER bm wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
I guess we have to deal with the fact that nothing is good enough for us.


That's not the issue here.. CCP has been fumbling and releasing half baked updates and patches for a while now. Most of what they do is not finished at release and it appears devs are pulled off and on to the next nerf/'improvement'/redesign instead of fleshing things out.

The problem is that you seem to be correct.
The citadel transition had a plan to replace the POS functions during a longer period.
The tactical destroyers - ships that by function and mechanics are much more simple - took a year of conversation before testing it on SISI to fix.

But trying to fix the strategic cruisers in about 2 months? Even if they started earlier without the focus group, this time is really short. CCP seems to be... desperate here. "Quickly do something! Anything!"

Personally I would like to know how many drafts were about the subsystems before they announced it on the last event. They clearly take suggestion from the forums, like the separate cargo hold for subsystems for example. So why is this whole rework so rushed?

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.

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#384 - 2017-06-22 18:06:46 UTC
Not quite what I asked. I was asking about how will T3C's look since they would visually loose one of the subsystems' making up one-fifth of the hull, not whether they will be compatible with SKINs.

I'll rephrase. If the engineering and electronics subs are being combined into so-called core subs, how will that be handled considering those sub groups account for two separate sections of the hulls? Will changing the core sub change those same two sections? Will one of them be permanent regardless of what subs are mounted? Or does CCP plan to rebuild their looks to only have four visual segments rather than five like they do now. Don't really care that much about making them work with SKINs. It would be nice, but that's not what I was concerned with.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Moksa Elodie
Hijo de la Luna
#385 - 2017-06-22 19:16:46 UTC
It has taken so many years to get to a T3 rebalance and it feels like the devs suddenly thought one day "OMG we forgot about rebalancing T3s, quick lets do it in a few weeks before Seagull finds out."

I spent a short time looking at Proteus and Loki configurations and it is a mess. I feel the defensive subs should have PWG & CPU added, remove the subs giving the PWG & CPU and turn them into something useful.

With the Proteus I had issues with PWG even when using an 800m plate alongside the friction extension sub and with the Loki using a shield setup I had 500 PWG spare and 8 CPU after filling all slots except 1 utility high slot.

Slot layouts need looking at again and normalizing, so many high slots ...? ( just condense the turrets down 4 and bring sub bonuses up). As for mid & low slots have a base of 5 & 5, with adjustments altering from that like +1 mid -1 low depending on what the ship has as an intended tank, etc.

Having this affected by tank and core, not propulsion (because it should be a given that a ship will be fitted with a prop mod), would mean a more balanced slot layout with a maximum of 7/3 or 3/7.

As for the cloaking sub getting an extra high slot, just use the utility slot for the cloak. 6 fixed high slots(-1 for drone subs because you like to do that for whatever reason), 4 for turrets/launchers/RR with 2 utility.

Finally, the whole ship appearance fudgery, I think the focus group must really hate themselves to think that the sub appearances which have been proposed was a good idea.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#386 - 2017-06-22 19:40:43 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Not quite what I asked. I was asking about how will T3C's look since they would visually loose one of the subsystems' making up one-fifth of the hull, not whether they will be compatible with SKINs.

I'll rephrase. If the engineering and electronics subs are being combined into so-called core subs, how will that be handled considering those sub groups account for two separate sections of the hulls? Will changing the core sub change those same two sections? Will one of them be permanent regardless of what subs are mounted? Or does CCP plan to rebuild their looks to only have four visual segments rather than five like they do now. Don't really care that much about making them work with SKINs. It would be nice, but that's not what I was concerned with.

What I can see on SISI currently, the electronics and defense are merged to be the core, and the engineering becomes the new defense.

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.

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#387 - 2017-06-22 20:09:54 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
What I can see on SISI currently, the electronics and defense are merged to be the core, and the engineering becomes the new defense.


Gotcha...thanks.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

Dom Arkaral
Bannheim
Cuttlefish Collective
#388 - 2017-06-23 01:31:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Dom Arkaral
So, did some fiddling on SiSi,
Bonuses don't apply correctly (or at all)

It was probably mentionned already, but I'm a tad too lazy to read through 20 pages P

Other than that, I'm very excited to see how it will change the current meta all over the placePirate

p.s. really loving the loki so far

Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester.

Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER

Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome

CCL Loyalist

Thomas Lot
Vogon Innovation
Warped Intentions
#389 - 2017-06-23 02:06:37 UTC
So a Cloaky T3C will still be able to pass a 30-ship insta-lock gate camp untouched, drop a covert cyno, cloak back up, and laugh at how over-powered the mechanic still is.

Pathetic.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#390 - 2017-06-23 06:06:02 UTC
Thomas Lot wrote:
So a Cloaky T3C will still be able to pass a 30-ship insta-lock gate camp untouched, drop a covert cyno, cloak back up, and laugh at how over-powered the mechanic still is.

Pathetic.

No they won't. They align like carriers.

Mergin analyzers bonus into covert sub was a mistake. Now we get same combo (covert+nulification) for two types of ships, recons and exploration hulls. They can't buff the tank here because it will cause overpowered recons but current tank is not sufficient for exploration needs.

Slots layouts are mess, tried to fit a loki and proteus for non combat exploration, there just simply not enough mids.

Creating pure exploration T2 is futile because we already have faction Stratios that is no go. Not to mention Nestor which is viable only for WHs repping and exploration bonuses are just SoE ships line flavour.

I think approach to slots distribution is another mistake, there should be strict slot layout changed by subsystem roles (-1 here, +1 there if necessary). Otherwise balancing this will be a nightmare.

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

Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#391 - 2017-06-23 09:59:51 UTC
Recon ships are weird.
They also seem to be a combination of two roles: electronic attack combined with half of an exploration equipment.
Currently Stratios is the only cruiser sized explorer. T1 explorer cruisers should have similar bonuses as the frigates, while being lighter and having a larger cargo hold than the average cruiser. These should be upgraded to recon ships with probe bonuses, one should get the cov-ops cloak and analyzers, the other the d-scan immunity with enough d-scan range bonus to see the whole system.
While the e-war cruisers should become heavy e-war cruisers where the primary abilities (target painting, sensor dampening, weapon disruption and ECM) are expanded by the secondary abilities (web, warp disruption, capacitor warfare and middle finger because Caldari has only one method).

By the way did anyone see what Chance Ravine was doing on SISI? 1000 DPS cloaky active shield cap-stable Tengu doesn't seem OP to anyone else?

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
#392 - 2017-06-23 10:59:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
that vid.. some crazy dps on those cloaky nullified covert T3 cruisers.. very OP ... the dps needs too drop on these ships, battleship dps on any fit especially the covert sub is just stupid ... covert as a defensive sub seems a bad move, you can't have them doing battleship dps in a covert config ... on the proteus the 3 midslots is just silly especially with a mid based e-war sub.

maybe consider dropping the amount of highslots on all these cruisers too reduce the dps and knock off 1 damage bonus on each weapon based sub.. especially the tengu..

maybe a hull tanked sub for proteus might be worth exploring.. also gets around the bad pg they seem too 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

Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#393 - 2017-06-23 11:37:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
The tank on the covert options are garbage unless you fit a passive tank and to me, this alone indicates that the design choice behind this is flawed. So if CCP are going to stick with that, the DPS absolutely needs to be high! Don't forget that you are in a mush squishier ship that when you die in, you lose skill points.

Every ship needs to excel at on thing, otherwise people will always choose the the better alternative... And no. Flexibility isn't a compelling enough feature because you can't apply that flexibility on the battlefield.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#394 - 2017-06-23 11:50:06 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
The tank on the covert options are garbage unless you fit a passive tank and to me, this alone indicates that the design choice behind this is flawed. So if CCP are going to stick with that, the DPS absolutely needs to be high! Don't forget that you are in a mush squishier ship that when you die in, you lose skill points.

Every ship needs to excel at on thing, otherwise people will always choose the the better alternative... And no. Flexibility isn't a compelling enough feature because you can't apply that flexibility on the battlefield.


the command/logi or even e-war + etc... begs too differ.. very useful in small gang pvp when have limited pilots so 1 ship doing 2 jobs can be a big deal... also that cap stable shield boosting 1k dps tengu has enough tank.

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

FT Cold
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#395 - 2017-06-23 13:29:32 UTC
Tengu is extremely deficient in power grid. 540 powergrid after fitting skills is far, far too low.
Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#396 - 2017-06-23 15:10:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
I have been messing around with the cloaky proteus fits and it seem under-powered in comparison to the tengu... The tengu gets great DPS at great range while the proteus gets ok dps at close range only. Armour vs shield tank is also uneven when you use ancillary reps, not only in power but in cap dependency.

Harvey James wrote:
the command/logi or even e-war + etc... begs too differ.. very useful in small gang pvp when have limited pilots so 1 ship doing 2 jobs can be a big deal... also that cap stable shield boosting 1k dps tengu has enough tank.


I was talking about the flexibility the modular design of T3 supposedly offer, not the ability to do two jobs as that is not changing, fundamentally.
Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#397 - 2017-06-23 15:58:11 UTC
I don't know if this idea has been suggested but T3C should work as follows...

The cruisers should be able to be refit without the use of a mobile depot (or similar) not under a combat timer. Saved fittings should be able to be instantly applied while in space providing there is not combat/weapons timer.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#398 - 2017-06-23 17:01:09 UTC
FT Cold wrote:
Tengu is extremely deficient in power grid. 540 powergrid after fitting skills is far, far too low.


If I heard it right, the primary offensive subs on the Tengu (Accelerated Ejection Bay and Magnetic Fusion Basin) get fitting bonuses to reduce fitting costs for weapons, cutting CPU and PG costs for them down to 75%. Many of the subs also add to PG.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

MrGTout Hucel-Ge
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#399 - 2017-06-23 17:43:07 UTC
"Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening
Caldari Defensive Systems bonuses per skill level:
5% bonus to shield hitpoints
5% bonus to the benefits of overhearing shield hardeners
Additional Stats:
+2M, +2L
+1000 Shields
+10m Signature Radius

Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node
Caldari Defensive Systems bonuses per skill level:
10% bonus to shield booster effectiveness
10% bonus to the benefits of overhearing shield boosters
Additional Stats:
+3M, +1L
+500 Shields, +100 Armor
+300 Capacitor Capacity"

For some reason, Supplemental Screening have 1 more L and 1 less M compare to Amplification Node, isn't that backward?
I don't see the point of having more M slot for active tank
Moksa Elodie
Hijo de la Luna
#400 - 2017-06-23 17:56:53 UTC
MrGTout Hucel-Ge wrote:

I don't see the point of having more M slot for active tank



I believe it is for a cap booster/battery