These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gurny Atreides
Simple Businessmen
#101 - 2015-02-27 05:24:05 UTC
So we're still not giving the loki augmented plating sub?
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#102 - 2015-02-27 05:49:50 UTC
Would really like to have seen all the defensive subsystems reduced to a 5% bonus. In terms of ehp, the proteus was the most egregious offender.
Eon Xero
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2015-02-27 05:55:00 UTC
Seems to me that a ship that risks skill points to fly should be pretty powerful. I also don't get the logic of making a more advanced ship (combination of advanced tech 2 ships + tech from a far more advanced civilization) less powerful than less advanced ships.

Not gonna get involved in the stat comparisons people have going on here, but I think the most obvious deciding factor to how these ships are balanced should be directly based on whether they continue to have Skill Point penalties when lost. If they do, they need to stay powerful, if they don't, then nerf them into the ground, whatever. Who cares if it's logical in regards to the game lore.

I refuse to do anything out of PVE with one anyway because I prefer to minimize the SP risk. Time is much more valuable than isk.
Alundil
Rolled Out
#104 - 2015-02-27 05:58:54 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Would really like to have seen all the defensive subsystems reduced to a 5% bonus. In terms of ehp, the proteus was the most egregious offender.

Clearly you haven't seen what's typically flown in fleets where the most egregious issues are most 'abused'. There are no big proteus fleets. It's not something that has ever caught on, ever. Can't be that egregious.

I'm right behind you
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#105 - 2015-02-27 06:43:02 UTC
Faltzs wrote:
Overall not bad changes, but I hope ccp also fixes tengus engineering subsystems, (one with the %power bonus has 2nd lowest power out put? and the one with cap recharge has the best so is clear the best to use.)



Things like this really make you wonder what the designers were smoking at the time they made these ships. It's like they got someone who can't read the localisation language and copy-pasted data in to the totally wrong subs. And somehow this complete departure from logic made it through internal testing all the way to live...

where like drones it has been neglected and ignored for like 6 years now.
NESTOR TRAVIS
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#106 - 2015-02-27 07:44:47 UTC
Weak buff to Loki IMO and even though I use the tengu the nerf should be more shield wise
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#107 - 2015-02-27 07:45:50 UTC
This is not a bad change ( I would have just removed rig slots instead), but why is the Proteus sig in these subs massively bigger than anything else?

Lowhyres
Remember The Fallen.
Warriors of the Blood God
#108 - 2015-02-27 08:19:36 UTC
im calling it now,

Meta will change from Tengus back to Proteus/Legion fleets everywere. Why, because bombs still are in the game thats why.
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#109 - 2015-02-27 08:40:53 UTC
Frankly, I'm okay with this. I do love my tengu, and this has been expected for a while. I'm surprised it's not a lot worse. I was figuring CCP was going to dress the tengu up in a gimp suit and let all the other ships have their way with it. But this isn't that bad.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#110 - 2015-02-27 08:41:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Bullet Therapist
Alundil wrote:
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Would really like to have seen all the defensive subsystems reduced to a 5% bonus. In terms of ehp, the proteus was the most egregious offender.

Clearly you haven't seen what's typically flown in fleets where the most egregious issues are most 'abused'. There are no big proteus fleets. It's not something that has ever caught on, ever. Can't be that egregious.


You do realize that a ship doesn't have to be suitable for current nullsec blob warfare to be overpowered, right? In any event, proteus/legion docs are definately a thing in null, and will only become the new tengus if they're changed as this current balance iteration indicates.

Also, I'd suggest re-reading (and comprehending) the 'Shield Capacity: 3550 (-200)' part of the proposed adjustment. This is the tuning factor that CCP has at their disposal to address the disparity between shield and armor defensive systems, if that's what you're gnashing your teeth over. I don't know where you're pulling your numbers from in your earlier posts, but every proteus doc I've ever engaged or flown, edges over 165k ehp with t2, on a 168m sig rad (vs 233 for a tengu), before boosts. Throw in bling, or throw an extra module to tank, or both, and they edge over 180 and start topping out at 215 very rapidly and very cheaply.

Bottom line is the prot is just as overpowered as the tengu, and has the distinction among the t3s as having the potential for being one of the tankiest subcaps, on no more than a cruiser hull. Even the potential for half million EHP should scream to any reasonable person that something is terribly broken on the hull.
Janeway84
Insane's Asylum
#111 - 2015-02-27 09:09:54 UTC
This is a hard nerf in a way but I guess if it makes the game better.
Can't we make t3's hp 50% less when they in sov space?
Inggroth
Harbingers of Reset
#112 - 2015-02-27 10:04:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Inggroth
Yo Fozzie,

i know this is super old, but any chance of t3-offgrid-link nerf while you're doing t3 balance pass?

Not talking anything major (like making Warfare Processor an offensive sub), just Warfare Processor tweak, so CS links are noticeably more powerful?
Necroborg Cytoserocin
Doomheim
#113 - 2015-02-27 10:07:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Necroborg Cytoserocin
I believe mentioned nerfings are missing some point. In highsec there are players who still are able to take solo wardeccer/war assistant role. Since they often fight seriously outnumbered, T3 in their superiority are enablers of this nieche. To keep this niche ("subprofession" would fit here too) I would suggest to make armor / shield bonuses dynamicaly correlating to fleet size to some small extent. That way solo wdeccers will still be able to retain their playstyle while larger T3 fleets will be rebalanced.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2015-02-27 10:35:17 UTC
As WH resident I support those changes but if u are giving us the bat please also give us the cookie.

Nerfing this to 7,5 is not such a big deal tanks will still be huge.

Like I wrote earlier I think you can easily bring them down to the level of loki but:

1) If buffer sub is gone we need +4% resists subs with full slots (6/7) but without rr.

2) Ls loss gone.

3) Rebalance of subsystems

4) 3/7 legion, 4/6 proteuss

5) work on signature T3 vs HAC vs Commands (maybe not increase much on T3 but lower on others)

6) anyone saying T3 need T1 resists is to be shot.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#115 - 2015-02-27 10:36:45 UTC
Alundil wrote:

Clearly you haven't seen what's typically flown in fleets where the most egregious issues are most 'abused'. There are no big proteus fleets. It's not something that has ever caught on, ever. Can't be that egregious.


Nerf the tengu and you will see them. Me and bullet don't see eye to eye on many things but on this he is spot on. The proteus is seriously out of whack in terms of tank compared to any cruiser and puts just about every batttleship to shame. Currently the bare hull gets:

125 shield EHP
125 armour EHP
2.32k hull EHP

That's nothing I hear you cry, well yea buts that's before we slap on a subsystem. With the Augmented plating we get:

6.1K Shield EHP
14.9k EHP
2.32k EHP

That's a little more than twice as much armour as a phobos, the supposedly superheavy cruiser for tackling titans.
Axloth Okiah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2015-02-27 10:53:33 UTC
Nerfing tank/DPS on T3s is cool. I just hope you are gonna add some new neat things and roles as well (like a bubbling engineer or electronics sub \o/).

SSC Brokering Service
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#117 - 2015-02-27 11:28:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Step in the right direction but would like to see some mobility penalties and a little bigger sig penalty on the supplemental type subs and less of an EHP nerf unless there are specific cases where its game breaking rather than a token tweak to hp to keep people complaining happy.

Increasing sig on the warfare sub is a nice idea to make off grid links less safe.
Corben Arctus
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#118 - 2015-02-27 11:34:42 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
TheMercenaryKing wrote:
now if only the prop mod bonus affected only 10mn classes.


a more sensible way to fix this would be to just completely prevent people from fitting oversized or undersized prop mods


I actually wouldn't mind if they did that.
Corben Arctus
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#119 - 2015-02-27 11:35:28 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
Nerfing tank/DPS on T3s is cool. I just hope you are gonna add some new neat things and roles as well (like a bubbling engineer or electronics sub \o/).


That's crazy talk.
Prospector Monk
Perkone
Caldari State
#120 - 2015-02-27 11:56:34 UTC
Signature Radius: 150 (-15) Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening

+5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP)

Well I guess the lvl 5 mission runner are pleased?