These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Strategic Cruisers - specifically what fixes they need
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
RcTamiya
Magister Mortalis.
#81 - 2016-01-04 18:03:01 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
RcTamiya wrote:
Morrigan LeSante yes and no, it might be true for some ships, but a damnation does not outperform a ham k ehplegion, dps might be better, utiltiy slots equal/better, BUT the neuting strenght is less ;)
Also as usual -> Blapdreads eat BCs too.



A linked abso has a small sig (actually smaller even than an unlinked proteus @ 174m vs 176m. Linked prot is 115m) and has 219k ehp. Its lowest resist is 85, vs a proteus 76 has a very similar DPS profile but tracks twice as well and is helpfully less than half as expensive.

Now, concentrate on those resists. A linked armor prot with a single large T2 remote repper on it will rep 495 EHP/s. That abso will rep 768 EHP/s. Your logi is 55% more effective, unless you can alpha it. And if you can alpha that abso, you can damned sure alpha the proteus.

Seriously, command ship fleets will decimate T3C fleets in terms of effectiveness - just the general population doesn't know it yet and the number of pilots with CS V (which is rather essential) is a shallow pool, relatively speaking.



check my killboard from a year or two ago, i ran CS fleets like all day long in wspace, however i'm saying that there's rolls a CS can't replace (long range webs, neuting support, etc), dps and ehp wise, yes they'll outperform T3cs, however absolutions are gettign wrecked by Legions with 2 neuts in their highs, if you have no cap, you can't shoot.... I definetly agree on more efficient logis etc, have you ever tried RR-CSs? they're incredible.
My only concern is that people cry about T3cs so much, without trying their counters or knowing them, most of them are more efficient in wspace, others are impossible in wspace but very valid in 00.
However i can't deny that a few tweaks here and there are absolutely welcome.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#82 - 2016-01-04 18:09:59 UTC
Oh yeah, there are definitely things you can't replace, I'm mainly making the point from the "ship of the line" perspective - i.e. "mad" tank and "mad" DPS.

:)
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2016-01-04 20:04:32 UTC
It sounds to me like the biggest counter to a T3C is anyone who knows how to fit ships using something at least as expensive to go up against a T3C pilot who doesn't know how to fit defensively because they're spoiled by their T3C.


All of you who call them balanced are quoting ridiculous stats and abilities. Then you make claims that there are other ships that can beat them in some areas where those ships SHOULD be able to beat them. One of you said that a command ship could reach lower sig than the T3C if the command ship is fleet-boosted and the T3C is not, and then said the Command Ship has much higher minimum resists which I have to chalk up to an inability to fit the T3C for resists, but despite all that, even still, that T3C still beats that command ship in overall defense because it moves much faster.

Then I hear complete crap statements like if a fleet can blap a command ship they can certainly blap a T3C...hate to break it to you but T3Cs often have command ship EHP with far superior maneuverability. So, sure, a fleet that has the T3C webbed and still has enough DPS to blap a command ship that isn't webbed could blap a T3C.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#84 - 2016-01-04 20:22:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
100-150ms is "much" faster?

Mate, I don't think you've ever seen an angry command ship fleet. Or even EFT warriored one. They cannot match command ships which roll in at half the cost. They're not even at the races tbqh.

I have more tank, I have the same gank, I am 50-33% of the cost, I have no skill loss on death.

The only place they lose out is the ewar ranges. As a ship of the line, they are measurably superior in every way.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#85 - 2016-01-04 20:29:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Double post
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2016-01-05 04:35:37 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
100-150ms is "much" faster?

Mate, I don't think you've ever seen an angry command ship fleet. Or even EFT warriored one. They cannot match command ships which roll in at half the cost. They're not even at the races tbqh.

I have more tank, I have the same gank, I am 50-33% of the cost, I have no skill loss on death.

The only place they lose out is the ewar ranges. As a ship of the line, they are measurably superior in every way.

I have EFT warriored them and your statement is utter crap. Even the slowest strategic cruiser is minimum 30% faster than the fastest command ship, and that's just throwing MWDs on them. The only way you could even suggest that command ships' mobility holds a candle to that of strategic cruisers is if you consider the command ships to be using skirmish links and the strategic cruisers to not be using any links at all.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#87 - 2016-01-05 06:28:16 UTC
You MWD an armor proteus fleet?

......

Okay....
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#88 - 2016-01-05 08:09:05 UTC
Here, take a look.

http://i.imgur.com/pcFFq5V.png

The lasers have ammo to work at all ranges the same as the prot. Note that I have REMOVED the proteus drones as if these were shooting each other, they'd be smartbombed off field the minute they got there. The Abso has T2 hobgoblins. applied damage is over a slightly wider range (as I say, compensated by ammo swaps to both) but generally speaking they either ties or one is insignificantly ahead of the other.

Yes, they are 140m/s quicker, but that mobility is meaningless as the ships have the same engagement profile, you can't kite me out of optimal without doing the same to yourself.

Note the effect of the large repper: You need some 50% more prot pilots as I have absolution pilots to put my logi under the same strain.

So, the command ship IS a better ship of the line, there can be no doubt. It is 43% of that proteus cost - I'll grant you a chunk of that cost is tied up in the tackle but it is STILL a couple of hundred million cheaper with them unfitted and has no skill point loss.

My main point is, yes the are very powerful, but there are other thing which excel just as well and even more than them in the tank/gank ratio whilst being cheaper and not having SP loss.

An argument can certainly be made that perhaps the come to close to matching the top dog of each pile and in some, they ARE that top dog (loki web/tank ratio, for example, or power to mass ratio for hole based violence) but like I and others have said - for their cost, both isk and skill risk they're not a million miles away from where they need to be.

They need a very light touch, to be honest. I am not a fan of a ground up rebuild which would mess with entire areas of space way of life (low class WH income) as well as the market in general.

The other thing that can be taken from this is that if they are nerfed much at all then the larger, older entities will most likely simply replace those fleets with command ships. They have a better fleet, at less cost, and reshipping isn't potentially days away if you do pop. Be careful what you wish for.


One more time for luck: I am not saying they don't need some work - but they are absolutely not what most people make them out to be and are not that far out of line with their existing costs and risks. Remove them and a functionally identical ship of the line can be put into service tomorrow and your main "problem"/"complaint" of tank/gank ratio is unchanged.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2016-01-05 08:36:12 UTC
Well if nothing else, this thread has convinced me to look into getting into a command ship at some point soon. I was lucky - I got BC to level 5 before the racial split, but it's still a 60-day train unless I respec (which I might, have to see what else I can cram into training that time period).

But as powerful as CS are, they can't do what they do some of the things T3 still can. I'll quote Serendipity Lost as she put it very eloquently already. I'll take the liberty to bold what I think is the most important.

Serendipity Lost wrote:

...It's OK for a Loki to be able to outweb a Huggin or a Rapier. It's not OK for a Loki to out web them AND be cloaky AND be nullified. It's the stacking of unrelated super powers that are making things go sideways...

...I think the balance move for the ship is to allow all of the above, but carefully make only certain abilities combinable in the same fit and prevent combining the ones that shouldn't go together. I'm OK w/ the BS EHP going with other super powers as long as it yeilds a BS size sig along with that tank...


Maybe this is the light touch that T3C need.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#90 - 2016-01-05 08:42:47 UTC
I'd say BC sig tbh. BS is probably too much. Certainly I'd start at BC.

And yes, there are definitely things with the ewar subs that are quite unique although it's notable that the recent HIC change stepped all over the proteus one, perhaps they have other plans in the pipeline for insane webs somewhere along the lines.

All that said, when links come on grid, this becomes a very different beast indeed. Perhaps major changes should be held back until the meta recovers from that.


And yes, command ships are the spanish inquistion of fleet war Smile
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2016-01-05 08:59:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Here, take a look.

http://i.imgur.com/pcFFq5V.png

Way to skew the results. You have drones and smartbombs on the Absolution while the Proteus has the ability to launch a full flight of mediums but isn't using them. If you're going to pretend the Proteus doesn't have any drones, you could at least use the dissonic encoding platform which will give its turrets better tracking and significantly increase its applied DPS against the Absolution. Furthermore, you unnecessarily put both a warp disruptor and scrambler on the Proteus, while the Absolution benefits from its much needed tracking computer. If you're brawling in those ranges, you can lose the disruptor. But since most folks don't use any warp stabs, you can probably do fine with just the disruptor.


Lets play fair now. First, I'm giving the Proteus that Dissonic Encoding Platform. Then I'm taking off the smartbombs from the Absolution because those are really just going to waste capacitor. Even if it's close enough to hit the Proteus with them, it'll just destroy its own drones. So instead I'm giving it small neuts...that's all its powergrid can handle at this point. They don't have much for range but they sure could neut that Proteus hard if they were in range! Lastly, I'm giving the Proteus a tracking computer.

Now take a look at how the damage scales between them. The Proteus is clearly hitting harder. link

The Proteus continues to hit harder at any range and since it also moves a lot faster, it might as well just run out past the range limit of the Absolution. link

Now they're way outside of that small neut range. Also, the Absolution doesn't have a warp disruptor/scrambler and we're assuming the Proteus never shoots its drones down. So even with a lot in the Absolution's favor, the Proteus has complete control of the fight.





Now let's not forget that battlecruisers are the counter to cruisers.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#92 - 2016-01-05 09:33:05 UTC
Sure if you gimp the fit to an non-practical one of course things change, shocker. More at 11. What's the point of bothering if you're going to be that dishonest? For christs sakes the POINT of the smarties to to clear drones, I even pointed this out. But sure, you go ahead and put small neuts on there because it suits your narrative. Jesus. It's like you didnt even read it. Did you even read it?

That's the T3 fit we have used to great success over the years, go far enough back on the killboards and you'll see losses of them. They've been used often enough by us for me to know what the hell I'm talking about.

I see you've also glossed over the fact the prot fleet needs 50% more bodies to sustain an equal level of logi pressure. Lets not forget the EHP disparity either.

Just because it doesn't suit your narrative, doesn't make it "crap".
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2016-01-05 10:45:10 UTC
Morrigan LeSante wrote:
Here, take a look.

http://i.imgur.com/pcFFq5V.png


I'm guessing you have set your tank to kinetic only because there is no way you would be getting 190k ehp in game with that fit!

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#94 - 2016-01-05 10:51:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Morrigan LeSante
Onmi.

Perhaps you overlooked the (mindlinked) links?

Ed: Also remember EFT total EHP doesnt map to in game as in game selects worst possible resist whereas EFT default is omni.
Faltzs
Thundercats
The Initiative.
#95 - 2016-01-05 13:00:33 UTC
As I say in every t3 balanceing thread with regards to Tengu:

Power output: (lvl5 skill)

Tengu Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir (cap amount) = 750
Tengu Engineering - Power Core Multiplier (total powergrid bonus) = 867.19 <<<
Tengu Engineering - Supplemental Coolant Injector (overheat) = 1031.25
Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix (cap recharge) = 1031.25

This is a problem unqiue to the tengu, why they havn't lowered the Capacitor Regeneration Matrix output to aorund 900 and then buffed the Power Core Multiplier to around 1250 giving it a simullar power output curves as other T3's I do nor know.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#96 - 2016-01-05 13:02:25 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
I honestly feel like T3 cruisers are in a pretty decent spot right now. They are viable as a high end fleet composition, but have counters. And they have some uses in nearly every part of space. I just do not see them as cancerous or so obviously superior to every other possible ship at every possible role. Frankly, if they are a better choice than the Zealot or the Eagle, I am okay with that, because those ships are fairly weak.

Unlike some, I am unwilling to gut what is left of WH space in order to put T3 cruisers in a neat spot between T1 and T2 just because that is where someone thought they should be. For the next iteration of T3 cruiser adjustments, I am all in favor of making them closer to Battlecruisers in sig radius and speed, but also making the weaker subsystems more viable options.

+1 to this. I'd also agree with another poster that one of the biggest issues is the low skillpoint barrier, as others have pointed out Command Ships are stronger in a lot of areas once you have skilled up to them.

My thoughts are pretty much the same as the above. They're powerful ships but by no means immune to counters. Half of the reason they're tanky as hell is because they're expensive enough to justify faction/deadspace mods + dedicated links at all times, something you wouldn't necessarily do on a HAC. On their own their not as OP as certain other ships in the game (looking at T3Ds and some of the other meta ships at the moment like the bloody Ishtar)

A completely overhaul of the subsystems would be an utter mess, there is no way they'd ever end up in a fully balanced position - they'll be either useless at everything or still have some abilities that people will call OP.

For me a good move would be an increase in Sig and potentially Mass/speed to be more along the lines of Battlecruisers to stop them treading on the toes of HACs. This would also weaken them overall without entirely breaking every aspect of why people fly T3s.

Some tweaks to certain subsystems are needed. There are a few examples where some subs are just flatout better than other options, from memory some of the engineering subs are really odd, for example the Tengu Powercore sub actually has significantly less powergrid than the Cap regen one for example? Some of the slot layouts could do with some tweaks too.

The next step I'd like to see considered would be the removal of Rig slots - this would need to be done carefully with tweaks of other subsystems to keep balance - this would allow them to hit the original idea of ships that can be adapted. As it stands you're regularly locked into a fit.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#97 - 2016-01-05 15:54:20 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I'm not sure on what planet strategic cruisers get battleship DPS.

My battleships get between 900 and 2800 DPS. My Strategic cruisers all do about 700-800.

Sure, your on-paper DPS is a lot higher for a battleship. But when you take into account the increased application of the strategic cruiser, they are often hitting targets for a lot more damage than battleships are.

But I'm not one of the people saying they get battleship DPS, so what does that have to do with this post?


You literally said Strategic Cruisers can get battleship damage when realistically most of them can't and even those that can reach only the very low end. Battleship tank they absolutely can and frequently do, but they don't do battleship damage.

Also in my opinion the issues battleships have with damage application is a problem with the design of battleships, not one with the design of strategic cruisers.

There's only one T3 that has a particularly unreasonable combination of tank, damage and agility without any apparent weakness and that's the Tengu. All of the others have major drawbacks such as the incredible vulnerability to neuting that the hybrid proteus and laser legion deal with, or the wet noodle DPS of their drone versions.

The Loki is arguably unreasonable because of the ubiquitousness of its EWAR subsystem.
Valacus
Streets of Fire
#98 - 2016-01-05 16:13:56 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
I honestly feel like T3 cruisers are in a pretty decent spot right now. They are viable as a high end fleet composition, but have counters. And they have some uses in nearly every part of space. I just do not see them as cancerous or so obviously superior to every other possible ship at every possible role. Frankly, if they are a better choice than the Zealot or the Eagle, I am okay with that, because those ships are fairly weak.

Unlike some, I am unwilling to gut what is left of WH space in order to put T3 cruisers in a neat spot between T1 and T2 just because that is where someone thought they should be. For the next iteration of T3 cruiser adjustments, I am all in favor of making them closer to Battlecruisers in sig radius and speed, but also making the weaker subsystems more viable options.

+1 to this. I'd also agree with another poster that one of the biggest issues is the low skillpoint barrier, as others have pointed out Command Ships are stronger in a lot of areas once you have skilled up to them.

My thoughts are pretty much the same as the above. They're powerful ships but by no means immune to counters. Half of the reason they're tanky as hell is because they're expensive enough to justify faction/deadspace mods + dedicated links at all times, something you wouldn't necessarily do on a HAC. On their own their not as OP as certain other ships in the game (looking at T3Ds and some of the other meta ships at the moment like the bloody Ishtar)

A completely overhaul of the subsystems would be an utter mess, there is no way they'd ever end up in a fully balanced position - they'll be either useless at everything or still have some abilities that people will call OP.

For me a good move would be an increase in Sig and potentially Mass/speed to be more along the lines of Battlecruisers to stop them treading on the toes of HACs. This would also weaken them overall without entirely breaking every aspect of why people fly T3s.

Some tweaks to certain subsystems are needed. There are a few examples where some subs are just flatout better than other options, from memory some of the engineering subs are really odd, for example the Tengu Powercore sub actually has significantly less powergrid than the Cap regen one for example? Some of the slot layouts could do with some tweaks too.

The next step I'd like to see considered would be the removal of Rig slots - this would need to be done carefully with tweaks of other subsystems to keep balance - this would allow them to hit the original idea of ships that can be adapted. As it stands you're regularly locked into a fit.


A few "tweaks" here and there is the same as doing nothing. T3Cs need a pretty hard EHP nerf. And it's not a good thing that spending money on expensive mods makes them super tanky. Their stats make the cost worth it, not the other way around. ISK scales well with T3Cs because of their high base stats and the defensive subsystems that add a percentage of the buffer you put onto it. Other ships don't scale nearly as well with ISK, which is why no one spends the ISK on them. T3Cs start at a high cost, but that little extra you put in goes a long ways. Then you add in EWAR bonuses like the Proteus and you scale your ISK even more off of subsystems that are just broken. The Proteus is definitely the worst offender of all T3Cs, with the Legion and Loki close behind. Like I said before, the defensive subsystems and fitting stats need to be nerfed to bring T3C EHP in a more linear gain path with T1 and T2 cruisers, not the current exponential gain they have right now.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#99 - 2016-01-06 00:39:12 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:

There's only one T3 that has a particularly unreasonable combination of tank, damage and agility without any apparent weakness and that's the Tengu. All of the others have major drawbacks such as the incredible vulnerability to neuting that the hybrid proteus and laser legion deal with, or the wet noodle DPS of their drone versions.

The Loki is arguably unreasonable because of the ubiquitousness of its EWAR subsystem.

tanky tengu increadibly vulnerable to neuts, damage (lol) HM is suxz almost 3 years now , HAML means you are almost brawling > neuts , webs and so on .

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

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#100 - 2016-01-06 04:54:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
You literally said Strategic Cruisers can get battleship damage

I literally did not say that in this thread.
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
There are two dominate opposing viewpoints out there:
1.) Strategic Cruisers are too strong because they can reach battleship damage or defense with cruiser attributes
2.) Strategic Cruisers are not too strong because they are expensive and cost skillpoints when you lose one

That is A viewpoint. It is not MY viewpoint.

I agree with most of the things you said about strategic cruisers but I wish to point out what people seem to continually miss: that these ships tank phenomenally better than HACs while easily performing alongside HACs overall in ways other than tank, and they can dish out tank and DPS at command ship level while maintaining substantially better maneuverability.

It looks something like this:

Price
T1 Frigate: |
T1 Cruiser: #
Combat BC: ###
Hvy Assault: ##########
Command: ##################
T3 Cruiser: #######################################################
A carrier: ###################################################################################

Combat strength
T1 Frigate: ##
T1 Cruiser: #####
Combat BC: ########
Hvy Assault: ##################
Command: ##########################
T3 Cruiser: ################################################################################
A carrier: ###################################################################

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."