These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Strategic cruiser balance pass
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2017-04-19 12:16:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Coralas wrote:


For the proteus, that would give you the option of a deimos that requires a whole new skill tree or a stratios that requires a whole new skill tree, level 5 skills and has no cargo capacity.


More like between a thorax and a navy exequror



I can't see the point to such a ship, if nothing else, we don't need more ships at that scale of hitpoints.

Quote:

Coralas wrote:

Which has to go into a hauler mode to carry enough gear to do the clark kent thing at destination


Nah. You don't need a huge number of mods to radically change the ship.



The drone variant carries 225m3 of drones. The modules are 40m3 each. The depot is 50m3 if I recall. Even just going to covops/null and 1 combat fit works only because you can leave some of the drone bay on the ship.

Quote:


Quite frankly I'm not too bothered if this makes doing things like 10/10s harder and riskier. If fewer run them then supply of the rewards drops and the people who do put in the time and effort get greater reward. I honestly think exploration was swung too far towards being easy.



I don't entirely disagree with that, but one problem is that it will be perceived as 2 player content, or rather, 2 account content done with blops which is imo a worse place to be as a game design than being done by solo t3s.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2017-04-19 12:19:50 UTC
Gimme Sake wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Gimme Sake wrote:
Why should SoE have an equivalent pve exploration ship when they're pretty much specialised for that purpose?


Why do you ask me?
I never claimed there should be.

I pointed out that there isn't, and that T3Cs fill that role.

Asteros/Stratios are quite poor at combat pve.
They are data/relic optimised.


You still have the Gila for combat exploration if Stratios isn't enough dps for you. Some hacs do pretty well also. Yeah you can't run 10/10 ded in them but that should be battleship/marauder or team up business.


This is straight down the path of making the content be perceived not as 2 player content, but 2 account content.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#83 - 2017-04-19 12:34:30 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:

That's called a trade-off. If you want tons of EHP you sacrifice other things for it. If you want tons of speed, you sacrifice other things for it.

If you can get all of the things at once the ship is OP.

You also seem to have missed that a good chunk of the ships out there being kitey and playing the high-mobility ranged game are, in fact, T3Cs, and you're overly focused on the Proteus and what you can get away with in a fleet setting with Medium Blasters. That's a bit of a square peg you're trying to jam into that round hole.

Basically you seem to be salty that the meta currently favors kitey ships, and your 10km range Medium Blasters aren't measuring up. Welcome to the meta, don't let it hit you anywhere sensitive. It'll swing around eventually to something friendly to your preferred style of play, in the meantime I suggest adapting or stepping away from it.


Trade off lol no matter the trade off you don't get something suited to the role which is the point of what I'm saying. The rest is just wrong and an assumption on your part - as anyone who has actually played with me could verify.

I was talking about the fleet blaster prot because it is the one brought up most often in this thread.


The reason nobody even consider the trade offs is because we all know there is a WTFPWNMOBILE that does it all in one package. Once your remove that "do it all" option, all the trade offs become interesting. The whole list of ship you made is essentially invalidated by a single one in the same way a bunch of frig and destroyer were completely invalidated by T3Ds. It's funny how the T3 stuff always seem to break stuff.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#84 - 2017-04-19 14:12:45 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Coralas wrote:


I can't see the point to such a ship, if nothing else, we don't need more ships at that scale of hitpoints.


That's because you wan't something horrendously overpowered not something handy.

Coralas wrote:


The drone variant carries 225m3 of drones. The modules are 40m3 each. The depot is 50m3 if I recall. Even just going to covops/null and 1 combat fit works only because you can leave some of the drone bay on the ship.


Drone bay and cargo hold a two different things. you dont have to have to carry 3 entire fits in the hold to radically change the ship. Mods are 10m3 each as are the rigs.


Coralas wrote:

I don't entirely disagree with that, but one problem is that it will be perceived as 2 player content, or rather, 2 account content done with blops which is imo a worse place to be as a game design than being done by solo t3s.


This is a multi player game, more working together is a good thing.
Cade Windstalker
#85 - 2017-04-19 14:34:30 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Trade off lol no matter the trade off you don't get something suited to the role which is the point of what I'm saying. The rest is just wrong and an assumption on your part - as anyone who has actually played with me could verify.

I was talking about the fleet blaster prot because it is the one brought up most often in this thread.


Your "role" in this case seems to be "OP super-tanked solo pwn mobile". That's not a role, it's blatantly over-powered.

If you actually have a better description of it besides "the role" then please elaborate, but so far you've been extremely vague and looking for meaning behind your language seems to just point to "The Proteus is the only thing that can do these things because it's OP" which is, um, not a counter argument against the ship being nerfed.

At all.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#86 - 2017-04-19 14:55:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Frostys Virpio wrote:


The reason nobody even consider the trade offs is because we all know there is a WTFPWNMOBILE that does it all in one package. Once your remove that "do it all" option, all the trade offs become interesting. The whole list of ship you made is essentially invalidated by a single one in the same way a bunch of frig and destroyer were completely invalidated by T3Ds. It's funny how the T3 stuff always seem to break stuff.


For a serious fleet role (rather than casual roams or throw away PVP, etc.) take that WTFPWNMOBILE off the table though and you are still left with options that are either hamstrung by the high bar for entry i.e. commandships or wholly inadequate to perform the role in today's Eve regardless of compromises you make.

Cade Windstalker wrote:

Your "role" in this case seems to be "OP super-tanked solo pwn mobile". That's not a role, it's blatantly over-powered.

If you actually have a better description of it besides "the role" then please elaborate, but so far you've been extremely vague and looking for meaning behind your language seems to just point to "The Proteus is the only thing that can do these things because it's OP" which is, um, not a counter argument against the ship being nerfed.

At all.


The role I'm talking about is the variant of prot often talked about, which is why I'm talking about it rather than the other scenarios where T3s are used - the 100s of K EHP with 1000dps commonly used with for instance guardians for serious fleet use - especially when you have low numbers and want to maximise the damage output. I'm not even touching on the solo use of the Prot.

Albeit my perspective is somewhat based off extensive wormhole use of that kind of composition.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#87 - 2017-04-19 15:04:53 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Rroff wrote:

For a serious fleet role (rather than casual roams or throw away PVP, etc.) take that WTFPWNMOBILE off the table though and you are still left with options that are either hamstrung by the high bar for entry i.e. commandships or wholly inadequate to perform the role in today's Eve regardless of compromises you make.


The only reason those ships are hamstrung is because T3C do the job so much better.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#88 - 2017-04-19 15:07:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
baltec1 wrote:

The only reason those ships are hamstrung is because T3C do the job so much better.


Nope.

Spent many many hours in those kind of engagements - most of the other "options" in the line for that role are too laughable in today's Eve to even entertain, the others that are adequate are hamstrung by the bar for entry - personally I had my alt in a halo'd Eos or Astarte in a fair few cases but that isn't an option for many mainstream players.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#89 - 2017-04-19 15:14:49 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Rroff wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

The only reason those ships are hamstrung is because T3C do the job so much better.


Nope.

Spent many many hours in those kind of engagements - most of the other "options" in the line for that role are too laughable in today's Eve to even entertain, the others that are adequate are hamstrung by the bar for entry - personally I had my alt in a halo'd Eos or Astarte in a fair few cases but that isn't an option for many mainstream players.


Any why is that not an option given the fact that we are tossing around suicide dreadnoughts and carriers in fleets of hundreds?

Last number I saw on supers was we had 20,000 of them and that was several years ago. Everyone is spitting out supers and titans at an unbelievable rate but you seem to think people can't afford to fly a command ship or zealot.

There is nothing wrong with the likes of the zealot, the problem is the legion is a far better zealot.
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#90 - 2017-04-19 15:16:37 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Coralas wrote:


I can't see the point to such a ship, if nothing else, we don't need more ships at that scale of hitpoints.


That's because you wan't something horrendously overpowered not something handy.



Not only is that wrong, its not a rebuttal of the point. I do actually fly vexors.
Quote:

Coralas wrote:


The drone variant carries 225m3 of drones. The modules are 40m3 each. The depot is 50m3 if I recall. Even just going to covops/null and 1 combat fit works only because you can leave some of the drone bay on the ship.


drone bay and cargo hold a two different things. you dont have to have to carry 3 entire fits in the hold to radically change the ship.


The drones gotta go somewhere where you don't have the dronebay sub on it. Its a pecularity of modular ships offering drone fits. If the revised game design is the modular exploration ship is underpowered and has to get past content by being flexible, then it needs to be able to bring all the flexibility.

Quote:


This is a multi player game, more working together is a good thing.


and being perceived as having all the high end content be 2 account sweet spots isn't.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#91 - 2017-04-19 15:28:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
baltec1 wrote:


Any why is that not an option given the fact that we are tossing around suicide dreadnoughts and carriers in fleets of hundreds?

Last number I saw on supers was we had 20,000 of them and that was several years ago. Everyone is spitting out supers and titans at an unbelievable rate but you seem to think people can't afford to fly a command ship or zealot.

There is nothing wrong with the likes of the zealot, the problem is the legion is a far better zealot.


Where did I say can't afford in context of a commandship? its a fairly long skill train relatively speak - though I guess with the ability to inject SP these days its less of an issue. Thing is though not everyone is part of or even wants to be part of that aspect of Eve you are talking about.

Personally if the Prot was taken off the table I'd just bring a tricked out Astarte - cheaper, has same tank as all but the silly blinged out T3s, 20% more DPS, utility highs, etc. - sig is a bit of an issue but I've enough experience to mitigate that somewhat. I don't really care in that regard personally if the 100s of K EHP, 1000 dps prot gets nerf batted (not that I even play any more anyhow).
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#92 - 2017-04-19 15:29:17 UTC
Coralas wrote:


Not only is that wrong, its not a rebuttal of the point. I do actually fly vexors.


And people who didn't want the nano nerf flew battleships. You are one of those people that follow the FOTM and don't want to see it go even if you don't think you are one of them. Other arguments we will see are "but its been in game forever like this", "but it costs a X amount" and "but nobody will fly it if its balanced with cruisers".



Coralas wrote:


The drones gotta go somewhere where you don't have the dronebay sub on it.


Why would you want to alter a droneboat into a railboat? Realistically its going to be more of a case of adapting Railboats to longer range, more tanky, ECM abilities, cloaking fits to combat fits, slapping on nullification or taking it off depending on bubbles and so on.



Coralas wrote:

Its a pecularity of modular ships offering drone fits. If the revised game design is the modular exploration ship is underpowered and has to get past content by being flexible, then it needs to be able to bring all the flexibility.


You don't need or want to bring all the flexibility to everything at once. If you go with a droneboat you build your flexibility around that.


Coralas wrote:


and being perceived as having all the high end content be 2 account sweet spots isn't.


Why? You are far more likely to stay in this game if you play with others than going solo.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#93 - 2017-04-19 15:34:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
baltec1 wrote:

Why? You are far more likely to stay in this game if you play with others than going solo.


Game is so much better when playing with others - hated it that so many people were refining C5/6 wormhole sites into low risk solo efforts - some of the best PVE experiences when doing it as a fleet and the dangers involved both from other players and NPCs that had the power to bring down even capitals.

Plus for those hating on T3s there is nothing in the game like sticking a 10-15 man T3 fleet out of a wormhole with a triage carrier in tow and engaging 100+ man BC/BS home defence type fleets, etc. especially if they escalate to capitals :D
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#94 - 2017-04-19 15:34:49 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Rroff wrote:

Where did I say can't afford in context of a commandship?


most of the other "options" in the line for that role are too laughable in today's Eve to even entertain, the others that are adequate are hamstrung by the bar for entry - personally I had my alt in a halo'd Eos or Astarte in a fair few cases but that isn't an option for many mainstream players.

Rroff wrote:

its a fairly long skill train relatively speak - though I guess with the ability to inject SP these days its less of an issue. Thing is though not everyone is part of or even wants to be part of that aspect of Eve you are talking about.


So they won't miss T3C stepping on on those ships toes.

Rroff wrote:

Personally if the Prot was taken off the table I'd just bring a tricked out Astarte - cheaper, has same tank as all but the silly blinged out T3s, 20% more DPS, utility highs, etc. - sig is a bit of an issue but I've enough experience to mitigate that somewhat.


The very fact you are having to compare a cruiser with a command ship (T2 battlecruiser) shows again how out of balance T3C are.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#95 - 2017-04-19 15:38:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


The very fact you are having to compare a cruiser with a command ship (T2 battlecruiser) shows again how out of balance T3C are.


Personally I think it faulty to look at them as a cruiser - T3s should be looked at in the light of small, medium and the currently non-existent large varieties - would get a bit silly having T3 variants of every ship class in Eve - as interesting as the original concept of T3s might sound it really wouldn't work well in actual ingame gameplay anything like as good as it sounds - games like Brink are a testament to ignoring that one :s
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#96 - 2017-04-19 15:54:22 UTC
Rroff wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


The very fact you are having to compare a cruiser with a command ship (T2 battlecruiser) shows again how out of balance T3C are.


Personally I think it faulty to look at them as a cruiser - T3s should be looked at in the light of small, medium and the currently non-existent large varieties - would get a bit silly having T3 variants of every ship class in Eve - as interesting as the original concept of T3s might sound it really wouldn't work well in actual ingame gameplay anything like as good as it sounds - games like Brink are a testament to ignoring that one :s


Literally called tech 3 cruiser.

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#97 - 2017-04-19 16:01:29 UTC
Pedantically - Strategic cruiser and based off of sleeper tech where the sleeper drones also have somewhat out of class capabilities in terms of EHP, sig and mobility, etc.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#98 - 2017-04-19 16:10:45 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Pedantically - Strategic cruiser and based off of sleeper tech where the sleeper drones also have somewhat out of class capabilities in terms of EHP, sig and mobility, etc.


AKA overpowered.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#99 - 2017-04-19 16:12:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Rroff wrote:
Pedantically - Strategic cruiser and based off of sleeper tech where the sleeper drones also have somewhat out of class capabilities in terms of EHP, sig and mobility, etc.


AKA overpowered.


Not arguing they aren't - I'm arguing that the changes that would bring the best overall result to the game aren't necessarily the ones that some, generally the most vocal, people think.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#100 - 2017-04-19 16:20:08 UTC
Rroff wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Rroff wrote:
Pedantically - Strategic cruiser and based off of sleeper tech where the sleeper drones also have somewhat out of class capabilities in terms of EHP, sig and mobility, etc.


AKA overpowered.


Not arguing they aren't - I'm arguing that the changes that would bring the best overall result to the game aren't necessarily the ones that some, generally the most vocal, people think.


Given that CCP have already said these ships are supposed to be landing between cruisers and navy cruisers I think we have a very clear idea of how savage the nerfs have to be.