These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
JC Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#141 - 2017-06-06 17:53:06 UTC
zbaaca wrote:
tengu 12 eff launchers vs loki 10

loki have exp vel 25% + rlml bonus while tengu plain stupid kinetic damage . insert falceplam here .

maybe add instead kinetic some exp rad bonus ? with current rof bonus it' will have about 9.6 launcers but superior application (well maybe crank up rof up to 10 effective) .

yet i still doubt that it will massacre small target like loki will do with rlml bonuses , but will make hml valiable again

not to mention loki can choose tank style so gets a lot more options to go with those missiles
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#142 - 2017-06-06 17:58:11 UTC  |  Edited by: zbaaca
JC Mieyli wrote:

not to mention loki can choose tank style so gets a lot more options to go with those missiles


yep . that point i overlooked . in armor tank insane , rlml with application with bonuses + web\painter\track comp = looks like instapopping small ships

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

Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#143 - 2017-06-06 18:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
Still waiting for final stats on nerfs / modification like ehp / resist / speed and sig rad to be sure but right now i feel(not know) that 5L loki armor tank(web sub) is too much of a nerf to it with all above nerfs it should continue to have 6L slots and be in the line.

I really don't want to see it go down like that just so one role it does extremely good atm all other possible roles for armor loki are ignored PVE and PVP please CCP reconsider WHY are you doing this and for WHO and should that be a reason to balance a ship?

I would like to see high slot from missile sub go down to low so armor loki get it 6L slot back or at least high get swapped to mid or something to use extra sensor boosters to be harder to damp....

All in all i dont think that one borderline oppressing and certainly annoying setup(that don't even use guns thus extra tank / dual prop) web loki should nerf ALL armor side of loki like that, that is used for both pve and pvp and i think just nerfs to t3 in general with achieve enough by it self.

They are counters out there and with reduction in overall tank ,mobility and being able to get hit easier...and since this balancing passes don't happen more than decade at a time......

Can anyone on CCP comment on this to the rest of us?

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#144 - 2017-06-07 10:48:25 UTC
Few things in my book that need addressing.

Powergrid is way too high for a cruiser, for example.

Proteus 1820

Thorax 1025
Exequror Navy Isuue 1038
Deimos 1313
Vigilant 1313
Talos 1375
Astarte 1688

A lot of the issues around T3C come from this massive powergrid problem, its a big part of how they can get such huge EHP numbers while still sporting the firepower and utility.

Base HP is another issue that helps them get so much better EHP results than other cruisers. Again looking at the bog standard proteus fleet fit (augmented plating).

Proteus:

Shield 6100
Armour 13700
Hull 3460

Deimos:

Shield 2930
Armour 5560
Hull 4760

Vigilant

Shield 3750
Armour 4630
Hull 4900

Talos

Shield 3020
Armour 3500
Hull 4030

Astarte

Shield 8290
Armour 13000
Hull 9330

Again it cannot be right that the proteus is getting more than twice the base armour of cruisers and is even edging the command ships. It should be brought into line with the rest of the cruisers.

Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Getting through a blockade should involve some skill on the pilots behalf.

Fourth, SP loss should go. Its just going to be used to justify the ships being overpowered compared to other cruisers, it disproportionately impacts younger players as older players such as myself don't have much to train for so can afford a few days training the skill again or can afford to simply throw isk at getting those skills back again. Its fairly rare to lose one.

Lastly I would look at reducing the size of the sub systems from 40 m3 down to 10 m3 and bumping up the cargo hold to 450 m3. That should give you the room needed for refits, ammo, charges and such so that they can be the highly adaptable cruisers you can adapt on the fly.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#145 - 2017-06-07 11:51:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Few things in my book that need addressing..

so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#146 - 2017-06-07 12:12:27 UTC
zbaaca wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Few things in my book that need addressing..

so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field


If you want battleship EHP bring a battleship.
Bromum Atom
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#147 - 2017-06-07 12:20:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Bromum Atom
baltec1 wrote:
zbaaca wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Few things in my book that need addressing..

so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field


If you want battleship EHP bring a battleship.

T2 command ships (with passive tank bonus) usually have more EHP then t3. Сomparison passive proteus with Astarte (with armor rep bonus) is not valid. Check EHP of Absolution or Damnation.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#148 - 2017-06-07 13:17:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
zbaaca wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Few things in my book that need addressing..

so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field


If you want battleship EHP bring a battleship.


Of if it's really needed, they could always re balance the rats in the sites. It's not like it's not like their currents stats are something that can't be modified at all...
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#149 - 2017-06-07 13:57:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP.

Please stop commenting about exploration or any PvE stuff. You have no idea how to catch explorers (hint: it's not on the gate, Rise even gave you d-scan immune ships for that). Covops and nullification will be hard nerfed I presume to the point single handed gate camp will have the chance to catch it.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#150 - 2017-06-07 14:01:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Getting through a blockade should involve some skill on the pilots behalf.

Lastly I would look at reducing the size of the sub systems from 40 m3 down to 10 m3 and bumping up the cargo hold to 450 m3. That should give you the room needed for refits, ammo, charges and such so that they can be the highly adaptable cruisers you can adapt on the fly.

I pretty well agree with all of your other points, but let me address these.

I am okay with the notion of CovOps and nullification being on the same hull at the same time, but I feel like making that choice should carry considerably steeper penalties than it does now, or will according to the WIP sheet. Maybe combine your two ideas: make most subsystems smaller, but make the nullification and/or CovOps subsystems bigger. A lot bigger. That way pilots will have a harder time refitting into, or out of, a nullified CovOps configuration in space. Force pilots to stick to their less-capable fit if they want the benefits of nullified CovOps.

Without knowing the final stats yet, I'd also consider further reducing the durability and/or mobility of a nullified CovOps fit. Make them more like bombers: slow, fat, glass cannons.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2017-06-07 14:42:20 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Getting through a blockade should involve some skill on the pilots behalf.

Lastly I would look at reducing the size of the sub systems from 40 m3 down to 10 m3 and bumping up the cargo hold to 450 m3. That should give you the room needed for refits, ammo, charges and such so that they can be the highly adaptable cruisers you can adapt on the fly.

I pretty well agree with all of your other points, but let me address these.

I am okay with the notion of CovOps and nullification being on the same hull at the same time, but I feel like making that choice should carry considerably steeper penalties than it does now, or will according to the WIP sheet. Maybe combine your two ideas: make most subsystems smaller, but make the nullification and/or CovOps subsystems bigger. A lot bigger. That way pilots will have a harder time refitting into, or out of, a nullified CovOps configuration in space. Force pilots to stick to their less-capable fit if they want the benefits of nullified CovOps.

Without knowing the final stats yet, I'd also consider further reducing the durability and/or mobility of a nullified CovOps fit. Make them more like bombers: slow, fat, glass cannons.

In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp.
In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons.
As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#152 - 2017-06-07 15:30:36 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp.
In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons.
As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site.

I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in.

Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2017-06-07 16:13:09 UTC
I know CCP is in process of full stats as well as overhauling how subsystems affect the hull, I'm an anxiously awaiting V2 of the changes.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#154 - 2017-06-07 20:35:00 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp.
In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons.
As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site.

I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in.

Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category.

Can you explain why subsystem that helps with traveling isn't require for exploration(nullified one)? Activity strongly connected with traveling at it's very core? By your logic covert cloak is not required either, I'm not using it when exploring hisec combat sites. I fit my explo vessels accordingly to the threats. No cloak - hisec, cloak - lowsec, cloak+nullifing - null. Mobile bubbles are still a thing, just switched to T2 ones.

On the other hand someone using covert cloak is not necessary an explorer. Yet they will end with bullshit tank because covert+nullified combo will be nerfed to the unusable level. So better to use Stratios over overpriced, SP loss, "versatile" T3C.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#155 - 2017-06-07 21:31:40 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp.
In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons.
As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site.

I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in.

Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category.

Can you explain why subsystem that helps with traveling isn't require for exploration(nullified one)? Activity strongly connected with traveling at it's very core? By your logic covert cloak is not required either, I'm not using it when exploring hisec combat sites. I fit my explo vessels accordingly to the threats. No cloak - hisec, cloak - lowsec, cloak+nullifing - null. Mobile bubbles are still a thing, just switched to T2 ones.

On the other hand someone using covert cloak is not necessary an explorer. Yet they will end with bullshit tank because covert+nullified combo will be nerfed to the unusable level. So better to use Stratios over overpriced, SP loss, "versatile" T3C.


Cov ops cloaks are very powerful on their own. Nullification is not required for exploration as can be seen with all of the other cov ops ships out there. The problem with nullification and cov ops being on the same ship is that it effectively means you can ignore any defence in your way. This not only means explorers can opt out of pvp but also means that people can and do use them to transport high value goods, offensive cyno's, hunt ratters, run escalations safe in the knowledge that they will not be caught while travelling unlike every other ship out there (including the other cov ops).

It is simply too powerful a combo. The pilgrim is never going to be much of an option so long as the legion has the power to ignore defences.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2017-06-08 01:35:09 UTC
With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#157 - 2017-06-08 03:15:42 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp.

Is that objectively a bad thing?
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2017-06-08 03:25:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Rawketsled wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp.

Is that objectively a bad thing?

Beyond making the subsystem relatively useless.
That kinda defeats part of the reason they are going down to 4 sets of 3 subs, which is to have better choices and remove useless combinations.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Amarisen Gream
The.Kin.of.Jupiter
#159 - 2017-06-08 03:42:53 UTC
Something crazy that I think would be great, make T3C T3BC instead.
It seems most of their numbers fall in line with BCs more than Cruisers anyway. Yeah it would be a crazy SP train to work out, but I think they would fit in better if they had the base stats inline with BCs vs cruisers.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#160 - 2017-06-08 03:53:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

That kinda defeats part of the reason they are going down to 4 sets of 3 subs, which is to have better choices and remove useless combinations.


Didn't realize cloak and nullification was a useless combination. Nullification was given to interceptors to make them unique. So they could fulfill the role of catching and holding down targets unimpeded by non-targeted effects (bubbles) but be horribly susceptible to damage as a trade off. What purpose does it serve on a T3C other than to make recons obsolete? What has been the trade off for this ability until now? Right, nothing. You had an nigh uncatchable cruiser with a BB level tank that could cloak until now.

Now those willing to put up an active defense will have the chance to catch these players. God forbid hotdroppers get a fight they weren't expecting... Maybe they could use this to their advantage and drop on the camp itself?
If players do not set up a defense or are not set up properly to catch a T3C then nothing changes and you get your dank kills regardless. Remember, they still need to get the decloak.

All they are doing here is giving defenders a chance to defend and force a fight on them. Something which has been lacking for a while now with all the insta-warp nano crap that has become the meta.

Edit: fixed a broken quote