These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Sisters of EVE faction ships

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2161 - 2013-10-25 20:26:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Querns wrote:
I did, but if you'd like to pretend that your issues aren't about that then I'd recommend we move the discussion to EVE Fiction where it belongs.

I run lvl 4's in cap stable marauders half the time. The other half I run a rattlesnake because drones are awesome. I run inefficient ships with inefficient and cheap setups. Arguing efficiency and isk/hour is not something I can knowledgeably do. I'm aware it suits your purpose to pretend it's all anyone cares about, but surely some part of you has the capacity to think beyond that illusion, right?

Querns wrote:
This is exactly my point -- the anger being levied here with the constant references to marginal Eve PVE content is directly related to the fact that a ship previously thought to cut the time taken to run these sites is being nerfed below the threshold where changing ships is required.

It could have been worse -- CCP could have made this change after you had purchased your new toys but before you managed to waddle into a DED complex to actually use it. :V

Hence the point of the dissenters here. It switching ships this is completely outclassed, other ships can scan and run then better and arguable run wider ranges of sites. Yes, there has to be some loss from say, an ishtar+helios combo in finding and doing sites, but there should still be enough teeth in this to actually do the same range and in reasonably close times.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2162 - 2013-10-25 20:29:58 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Querns wrote:
I did, but if you'd like to pretend that your issues aren't about that then I'd recommend we move the discussion to EVE Fiction where it belongs.

I run lvl 4's in cap stable marauders half the time. The other half I run a rattlesnake because drones are awesome. I run inefficient ships with inefficient and cheap setups. Arguing efficiency and isk/hour is not something I can knowledgeably do. I'm aware it suits your purpose to pretend it's all anyone cares about, but surely some part of you has the capacity to think beyond that illusion, right?

So, by your own admission, your beef with these ships is about a frame of reference you have no interest or experience in? And, curiously, the frame of reference you DO have is running Level 4 missions? And, judging by your eveboard at http://eveboard.com/pilot/Tyberius_Franklin/standings , you seem to have an awfully high standings with the Servant Sisters of Eve.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a textbook Ulterior Motive.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2163 - 2013-10-25 20:41:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Querns wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Querns wrote:
I did, but if you'd like to pretend that your issues aren't about that then I'd recommend we move the discussion to EVE Fiction where it belongs.

I run lvl 4's in cap stable marauders half the time. The other half I run a rattlesnake because drones are awesome. I run inefficient ships with inefficient and cheap setups. Arguing efficiency and isk/hour is not something I can knowledgeably do. I'm aware it suits your purpose to pretend it's all anyone cares about, but surely some part of you has the capacity to think beyond that illusion, right?

So, by your own admission, your beef with these ships is about a frame of reference you have no interest or experience in? And, curiously, the frame of reference you DO have is running Level 4 missions? And, judging by your eveboard at http://eveboard.com/pilot/Tyberius_Franklin/standings , you seem to have an awfully high standings with the Servant Sisters of Eve.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a textbook Ulterior Motive.

I have high standings with their allies, and as a result them, and like to get the gear I use for exploration direct from the LP store. But again, you deflect from the fact of the matter and simply attempt to discredit based on shady "ulterior motives." So you won't address the actual gripes people have with the ships, discredit the intended purpose without much reason, and just state that anyone with a dissenting opinion shouldn't be listened to because of space pixel greed.

Regarding the ability to run sites, yes, I have to defer to those with more experience, and this ship was something I was hoping would help be an in for that to me. But if those who know are stating this won't work for the purposes intended, I'm not going to argue back on that, especially when the other side is arguing the same, but that this doesn't matter.

I will however question the idea of this being needed considering the vehement rejection it faced in the early portion of the thread for it's PvP application which is still largely intact. I stand by what I said about the ship possibly needing further adapted to the gank role by reduction, or removed perhaps or reworked so as to not work so well at the gank side from another angle, any of which would devalue the great stockpiles of LP that your imagination has dreamt up for me.
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
#2164 - 2013-10-25 20:46:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Crazy KSK
with those recent changes to the statios you hit the exploration aspect on it sooo much harder and missed the actual pvp bound issue almost entirely

the main reason I see why it would be OP is that it can be fit as shieldgank with blasters and lows full of damage doing 1085dps
THAT is what should be nerfed without nerfing the pve capabilities
for pve you could hardly run lasers on it anyway so the changing of the bonus did litle


here is what you should be doing:

Option 1
remove all hardpoints I thought about leaving 2 and giving it 100% to laser damage but as I said laser can hardly be run due to cap consumption with no hardpoints it would still be able to do 845dps just like the gila

Option 2
another path that would actually be even better (I think) is to move two meds to lows all you need for pve is an ab a OdTL and a hacker/analizer (with the mobile hangar thing coming up you can refit in space) you can use cap relays in the lows for cap stability
yes, this would allow it to fit a better armor tank but it would not make it too powerful since a certain other ship called the vigilant has about the same dps/tank ratio is faster and its dps can not be destroyed

Quote CCP Fozzie: ... The days of balance and forget are over.
Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2165 - 2013-10-25 20:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Lunkwill Khashour
The Stratios loses a single drone and suddenly everyone is mad that they won't be getting their cloaky Ishtar?

Before this, the ship was straight up better than the Gila/Ishater/Navy Vexor at exploring and running sites. Now a choice has to be made between pure dps and scanning/cov ops/drone bay/mini professions/mobility. Yay for choices!
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#2166 - 2013-10-25 20:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Querns wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Its not dropping, because we'll continue to solo them in other ships. Years and years later we have a lot more SP, and a lot more isk. They were designed to be group content way back when everyone sucked. Now only the hardest ones are group content. But you don't see CCP nerfing PVE ships or making the sites harder do you? Instead, the most popular ships for doing these sites got better, and we got stuff like drone damage amplifiers, RIGS, and t3s. Don't play the BS "group content" card.


This is exactly my point -- the anger being levied here with the constant references to marginal Eve PVE content is directly related to the fact that a ship previously thought to cut the time taken to run these sites is being nerfed below the threshold where changing ships is required.

It could have been worse -- CCP could have made this change after you had purchased your new toys but before you managed to waddle into a DED complex to actually use it. :V


Actually, I'm finishing Amarr cruiser 5 today Lol. But you're right, I'm a bit angry, and maybe not justifiably so. But I would like to point out that its not about changing ships at all, its about getting your combat ship to the actual site. This is the sticking point. What we wanted was a good plex runner that had the ability to travel safely. This is important because in the plex-running world, expensive ships and mods are absolutely worth the investment, so plex running ships are expensive. What we have now is a plex runner that is strictly inferior to a plex ishtar, gila, or tengu. And not just a little inferior, very inferior. Its great that it can probe and do hacking sites, but as a primary combat ship it'll be relegated to lowsec plexes only. Maybe I'll use it as supplemental probing dps and hacking while I run a different ship as the primary.

The other issue is how and why it was nerfed. Everyone could see that the ship was crazy OP being a high dps cloaky warper. But removing 25mbit of bandwidth doesn't change this one bit, while being a significant nerf to its PVE ability. Again, I was really hoping it would just get a sensor recalibration penalty. Particularly considering the lasers can be used for PVP, but will hardly ever be used in its PVE role.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2167 - 2013-10-25 21:00:09 UTC
Lunkwill Khashour wrote:
The Stratios loses a single drone and suddenly everyone is mad that they won't be getting their cloaky Ishtar?
I would have much rather seen the turrets save maybe one and 1-2 high's go, even if not reimbursed to lows. Would have served the PvE side better I believe alongside a modest reduction in the drone damage bonus to 7.5%.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#2168 - 2013-10-25 21:03:20 UTC
well if they were to strip some highs to allow for 5th drone it ends up with lots of utility highs which would make it be even more OP than it already is being +1 slot up on other drone boats

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
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#2169 - 2013-10-25 21:07:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Lunkwill Khashour wrote:
The Stratios loses a single drone and suddenly everyone is mad that they won't be getting their cloaky Ishtar?


Its a 20% dps loss on a drone ship that cannot reasonably fit many DDAs (in PVE). The ship was already significantly worse than the ishtar in terms of sentry damage, saying we're mad because we won't get a cloaky ishtar is just absurd.

Meanwhile the ship can still fit lasers, max gank, and be a horribly OP cloaky pvp ship.

If you furthermore consider that the ship recieved its drone nerf because of concerns it was too ganky for a covert ops ship... well, that's something we call irony.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2170 - 2013-10-25 21:10:14 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
well if they were to strip some highs to allow for 5th drone it ends up with lots of utility highs which would make it be even more OP than it already is being +1 slot up on other drone boats

It can still use those as utility highs now. 4 neuts + 4 sentries/heavies with full tackle and double web is still doable with this iteration. On the other hand we'd be looking at 2 neuts and 0.875 more effective drones. Conversely the 4 blaster(or whatever other turret) + drones fit is pretty well neutered compared to the current iteration, albeit admittedly probably forcing a neut into the fit.
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2171 - 2013-10-25 21:15:51 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Lunkwill Khashour wrote:
The Stratios loses a single drone and suddenly everyone is mad that they won't be getting their cloaky Ishtar?


Its a 20% dps loss on a drone ship that cannot reasonably fit many DDAs (in PVE). The ship was already significantly worse than the ishtar in terms of sentry damage, saying we're mad because we won't get a cloaky ishtar is just absurd.

Meanwhile the ship can still fit lasers, max gank, and be a horribly OP cloaky pvp ship.


It's still a cruiser, and while it's going to be completely hilarious to use in PvP; I'm quite certain that if you actually use the fool proof method of "find something inside complex, click on it, push orbit at whatever, activate afterburner, pew pew pew" still works in the scope the ship was designed for without replacing the need for completely ridiculous Marauder changes (seriously how much crap do you nerds need to efficiently kill little red crosses all day).

This change, regardless of what any of you publords think about it, is pretty well thought out and implemented- A ship that was previously ridiculously OP is now only kind-of-sort-of OP. If you're planning on armor tanking this beautiful ship you're bad at everything and should feel bad; just throwing that out there.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2172 - 2013-10-25 21:16:35 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Querns wrote:
I did, but if you'd like to pretend that your issues aren't about that then I'd recommend we move the discussion to EVE Fiction where it belongs.

I run lvl 4's in cap stable marauders half the time. The other half I run a rattlesnake because drones are awesome. I run inefficient ships with inefficient and cheap setups. Arguing efficiency and isk/hour is not something I can knowledgeably do. I'm aware it suits your purpose to pretend it's all anyone cares about, but surely some part of you has the capacity to think beyond that illusion, right?

Querns wrote:
This is exactly my point -- the anger being levied here with the constant references to marginal Eve PVE content is directly related to the fact that a ship previously thought to cut the time taken to run these sites is being nerfed below the threshold where changing ships is required.

It could have been worse -- CCP could have made this change after you had purchased your new toys but before you managed to waddle into a DED complex to actually use it. :V

Hence the point of the dissenters here. It switching ships this is completely outclassed, other ships can scan and run then better and arguable run wider ranges of sites. Yes, there has to be some loss from say, an ishtar+helios combo in finding and doing sites, but there should still be enough teeth in this to actually do the same range and in reasonably close times.


Now consider 2 Statios vs Ishtar&Helios.
Then consider Ishtar+Stratios.

In both of those situations you are probably running a 6/10 faster than just a solo Ishtar with a prober helping it find the sites fast.

My complaints with the ships are still.
The Astero does need that third high. Cloak, Probes, Salvager/Remote Reps/Cyno.
Simply fitting Cloak & Probes leaves you no utility highs & no turret DPS, meaning your drones have to be DPS drones.

The Stratios needs a better laser bonus. Or CCP need to scrap the whole laser bonus idea. It is not fulfilling it's role as a combined laser/drone ship with current bonuses. & as such is a largely wasted bonus. 3 Turret slots (Since 90% of actually used fits will have at least 2 utility) with a 37.5% bonus to Optimal & Damage come out with similar laser DPS, lower cap use, and slightly less range than we have currently, which avoids stepping on any other optimal bonused laser ships toes, while providing a clear reason to use lasers over other turrets (But not negating the advantages of other turrets in certain side cases).
The Expanded Probe launcher should be given a CPU buff on the Stratios. It's silly that you have to train to a single ship class that is meant to be a 'generalist' class while no ship in the T1 or T2 range (Especially the specialist T2 range) gets any bonus to fitting a combat probe launcher. & as such fitting one uses over 1/3rd of your CPU up instantly. Horribly gimping the fit for any other uses.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2173 - 2013-10-25 21:23:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Now consider 2 Statios vs Ishtar&Helios.
Then consider Ishtar+Stratios.

In both of those situations you are probably running a 6/10 faster than just a solo Ishtar with a prober helping it find the sites fast.

Considering that changing ships was mentioned, Helios to 2 Ishtars, since were increasing to 2 pilots is still a winning scenario. I'll grant you the all in one is an advantage when solo or changing ships is prohibitive, but usually those living in low would have that under control I would think, so I guess this becomes the vessel of day trippers to lowsec running 4-5/10's? That is undeniably a niche, but it's a much lower one than the PvP implications that the ship still holds.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#2174 - 2013-10-25 21:25:53 UTC
Peopel that think this thing now suddenly cannto kill things.. need to

A) learn to play

B) train a bit more than 2 M skillpoints...

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Gummy Worm
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2175 - 2013-10-25 21:34:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Gummy Worm
I don't think many people are arguing that it cannot kill anything, but simply the applied nerf mostly concerned its PVE capabilities when the PVP capabilities was the original concern. Despite being told it was a very thoroughly discussed topic, the specific nerf didn't make sense. We all would agree that something had to be done. Nobody is saying that the original setup was not broken on paper, but the fix wasn't very well thought out from what we've been told and presented.
Gummy Worm
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2176 - 2013-10-25 21:36:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Gummy Worm
Nevyn Auscent wrote:


My complaints with the ships are still.
The Astero does need that third high. Cloak, Probes, Salvager/Remote Reps/Cyno.
Simply fitting Cloak & Probes leaves you no utility highs & no turret DPS, meaning your drones have to be DPS drones.



Third high isn't necessary. Salvage, and armor rep maintenance drones are all you need in this little guy. Necessary is the keyword.
Xolve
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2177 - 2013-10-25 21:36:53 UTC
Gummy Worm wrote:
I don't think many people are arguing that it cannot kill anything, but simply the applied nerf mostly concerned its PVE capabilities when the PVP capabilities was the original concern. Despite being told it was a very thoroughly discussed topic, the specific nerf didn't make sense. We all would agree that something had to be done. Nobody is saying that the original setup was not broken on paper, but the fix wasn't very well thought out from what we've been told and presented.


Explain to me why losing 20% of a fifth drone matters so much then.
Xorionna
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2178 - 2013-10-25 21:40:49 UTC
Right now, SOE ships will gain a T2 ship only bonus (covert op cloaking devices). I think it is a bad idea, It would be better if they had a speed bonus when cloaked (like black ops ?). There is no T1 cov ops modules, there should be no T1 ships able to fit them.
Note that I don't want the guristas line to be able to fit a bastion module either.

Looks like Guristas ships will loose the drone focused bonuses they have right now. As a result there will be no more shield tanked drone boats in the game. I also think it's a bad idea to loose this versatility.

I would give role bonuses to drones for SOE ships and only role bonuses (fixed hit point bonus, orbital speed and MWD speed so ogres can become way scarier maybe sensor strength of electronic warfare drones...). This way the ships and its drones are both mobile. The +10 virus strength and the bonus to scanning fits perfectly SOE so I think it should stay this way.
For skill-dependent bonuses (amarr/gallente frigate/cruiser) I would focus on tracking + damage bonuses for lasers (no one wants to use them for lasers so far) and tanking.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2179 - 2013-10-25 21:40:59 UTC
Xolve wrote:
Gummy Worm wrote:
I don't think many people are arguing that it cannot kill anything, but simply the applied nerf mostly concerned its PVE capabilities when the PVP capabilities was the original concern. Despite being told it was a very thoroughly discussed topic, the specific nerf didn't make sense. We all would agree that something had to be done. Nobody is saying that the original setup was not broken on paper, but the fix wasn't very well thought out from what we've been told and presented.


Explain to me why losing 20% of a fifth drone matters so much then.

It's not 20% of a 5th drone, it's 20% of 5 drones, or 1.5 of what was 7.5 effective drones. I'm not sure how a 20% loss isn't significant in an obvious way, so I can't really answer. I would ask though, in PvE where the drones are likely to far outshine your turrets due to utility further cutting out your highs, how does a 20% loss not matter much?
Gummy Worm
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2180 - 2013-10-25 21:41:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Gummy Worm
Xolve wrote:
Gummy Worm wrote:
I don't think many people are arguing that it cannot kill anything, but simply the applied nerf mostly concerned its PVE capabilities when the PVP capabilities was the original concern. Despite being told it was a very thoroughly discussed topic, the specific nerf didn't make sense. We all would agree that something had to be done. Nobody is saying that the original setup was not broken on paper, but the fix wasn't very well thought out from what we've been told and presented.


Explain to me why losing 20% of a fifth drone matters so much then.


It's not that it matters so much, it's that what was affected was not the concern, and there were much better ways to fix it. If you have a problem, resolve it. Our bike had three wheels and we just had our seat cut in half to minimize mass weight. My question to you would be the same, "Why gaining 20% of a fifth drone matter so much?" So, then the divide between us is the application of the necessary nerf: Was it applied to the best possible spot on the ship? Could there have been a better spot? My position is a very emphatic yes, and that point has been detailed thoroughly with numerous options in this thread.

Furthermore, I think CCP is missing an opportunity to really hit a grand slam with this ship for the Rubicon update. It's a signficant update, and opening up the discussion once more would be the right thing to do since many good points are being made. Properly nerfing the ship and bringing it to the middle would be the best.