These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#321 - 2017-06-21 07:36:16 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
T3C are supposed to be the highly adaptable generalists, T2 are the specialists, T1 are the base model, faction are the posh base model and pirate are the high quality supermodel.

This whole lineup is based on a rule that T3Cs always failed to follow, a rule which was made by the devs years ago.
Yet during all of these years people were only complaining about T3Cs being stronger than the T2 cruisers. Am I really the first one who questions: what if the rule itself is the problem?
Wouldn't it make more sense if you learn all T2 specialized cruisers to level 4 or 5, and only then would you unlock the T3Cs which can combine their roles? Tech 3 ships seem to play by their own rules anyways, why shouldn't we turn the strategic cruisers the endgame subcapital? Increase the skill requirements to need all of the skills of all roles the subsystems could provide, and at that point you have a legit reason to be better than the T2 versions.


That just makes the T2 ships obsolete.
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2017-06-21 08:20:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Alderson Point
BESTER bm wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
If no other cruiser can run these sites then why should t3c?


Because these are not any other Cruisers, they are T3/higher end/more flexible/more powerful cruisers. T3C come with a hefty skill requiremant, will generally cost a good bit more and carry a significant penalty for losing it beyond just losing the ship. Seems to me that would call for some balance..

Instead it seems CCP and the pewew crowd in the game seem to prefer it to be 'just another cruiser' as they are unable to deal with it otherwise.


baltec1 wrote:
Why should the T3C which is supposed to be a generalist be as good or better than a specialised ship?


First off, it appears you have never run these sites so you would not know what you are talking about. Second, there really is no alternative to the T3C to run these sites. There is nothing beyond an explo fit T3C that wil lgive me the bonusses on scanning/hacking and even the T3C is relatively slow for this purpose. Frankly, the rewards from these sites barely justify the investment of SP and ship/fit required

Fozzie said they wanted to preserve the exploration role, it is quite clear from the latest information he either lied or has no clue about what is required to run these sites.



Putting aside the "T3c vs HAC" discussion for the moment.

If CCP wish, as I believe T3s to have the opportunity to continue as a Viable exploration ship, in the manner we can currently utilise them,even though refitting may now be needed, the solution in this case would be to Ideamove the Virus strength and scan bonus to a ship bonus Idearather than the defensive subsystem bonus.this then allows an appropriate defensive fit, that can still hack challenging sites.

The covert ops defensive subsystem, would still be valuable due to the significant value of the covert ops cloak, and this doesn't add too much in practice to fits that do not use a covert ops cloak, and this will enable true exploration fits to still exist.

The downside of this would be turning scan strength from 10% per level into a fixed role bonus, but as most T3C pilots train defensive to at least 4 if not almost exclusively 5 anyway, this may not be such an issue as it might first appear.

Discuss.
Blazemonger
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#323 - 2017-06-21 10:14:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Blazemonger
Alderson Point wrote:
If CCP wish, as I believe T3s to have the opportunity to continue as a Viable exploration ship, in the manner we can currently utilize them,even though refitting may now be needed, the solution in this case would be to Ideamove the Virus strength and scan bonus to a ship bonus Idearather than the defensive subsystem bonus.this then allows an appropriate defensive fit, that can still hack challenging sites..


It would appear from previously mentioned documents that resists/tank will virtually be cut in half which will make these ship no longer viable to run high end exploration sites and the cost of getting unlucky is now losing a 1B ship and a skill level which in no way will validate running the sites which at best will yield 25-30% of the ship's value in loot.

And another thing.. If the numbers in the docs pan out, it will not be possible to safely run Ghost sites anymore either. The tank will drop below that of a half decent Astero tank and I will want/need cloak to warp in to a Ghost site Which means no possibility to fit tank subsystems. And don't get me started on being forced to refit in space, being vulnerable for well over a minute.

What I predict will happen though is CCP will ignore all this and just nerf down the sites, making them more accessible which in turn makes them less valuable and explorers such as myself with 2-3 alts all trained and skilled to fly these T3C fits to lose any benefit from this. In fact unless this changes I will probably scrap these alts alltogether as I won't be able to use them anymore.. Not that I think CCP cares, as they cater to PVP and group/fleet based activity first and foremost, but it will mean a loss of real world income for them.

On early reports from the focus group I had hopes of this working out OK, currently I am pessimistic about the viability and continuation of a good bit of my income in game. If that happens all I can do is reconsider whether this game is still worth the investment.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#324 - 2017-06-21 11:03:35 UTC
Blazemonger wrote:
Alderson Point wrote:
If CCP wish, as I believe T3s to have the opportunity to continue as a Viable exploration ship, in the manner we can currently utilize them,even though refitting may now be needed, the solution in this case would be to Ideamove the Virus strength and scan bonus to a ship bonus Idearather than the defensive subsystem bonus.this then allows an appropriate defensive fit, that can still hack challenging sites..


It would appear from previously mentioned documents that resists/tank will virtually be cut in half which will make these ship no longer viable to run high end exploration sites and the cost of getting unlucky is now losing a 1B ship and a skill level which in no way will validate running the sites which at best will yield 25-30% of the ship's value in loot.

And another thing.. If the numbers in the docs pan out, it will not be possible to safely run Ghost sites anymore either. The tank will drop below that of a half decent Astero tank and I will want/need cloak to warp in to a Ghost site Which means no possibility to fit tank subsystems. And don't get me started on being forced to refit in space, being vulnerable for well over a minute.

What I predict will happen though is CCP will ignore all this and just nerf down the sites, making them more accessible which in turn makes them less valuable and explorers such as myself with 2-3 alts all trained and skilled to fly these T3C fits to lose any benefit from this. In fact unless this changes I will probably scrap these alts alltogether as I won't be able to use them anymore.. Not that I think CCP cares, as they cater to PVP and group/fleet based activity first and foremost, but it will mean a loss of real world income for them.

On early reports from the focus group I had hopes of this working out OK, currently I am pessimistic about the viability and continuation of a good bit of my income in game. If that happens all I can do is reconsider whether this game is still worth the investment.


Good, this is supposed to be hard content.
Sterling Blades
Windstalker Security Corp
United Neopian Federation
#325 - 2017-06-21 11:35:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Sterling Blades
baltec1 wrote:
Blazemonger wrote:
Alderson Point wrote:
If CCP wish, as I believe T3s to have the opportunity to continue as a Viable exploration ship, in the manner we can currently utilize them,even though refitting may now be needed, the solution in this case would be to Ideamove the Virus strength and scan bonus to a ship bonus Idearather than the defensive subsystem bonus.this then allows an appropriate defensive fit, that can still hack challenging sites..


It would appear from previously mentioned documents that resists/tank will virtually be cut in half which will make these ship no longer viable to run high end exploration sites and the cost of getting unlucky is now losing a 1B ship and a skill level which in no way will validate running the sites which at best will yield 25-30% of the ship's value in loot.

And another thing.. If the numbers in the docs pan out, it will not be possible to safely run Ghost sites anymore either. The tank will drop below that of a half decent Astero tank and I will want/need cloak to warp in to a Ghost site Which means no possibility to fit tank subsystems. And don't get me started on being forced to refit in space, being vulnerable for well over a minute.

What I predict will happen though is CCP will ignore all this and just nerf down the sites, making them more accessible which in turn makes them less valuable and explorers such as myself with 2-3 alts all trained and skilled to fly these T3C fits to lose any benefit from this. In fact unless this changes I will probably scrap these alts alltogether as I won't be able to use them anymore.. Not that I think CCP cares, as they cater to PVP and group/fleet based activity first and foremost, but it will mean a loss of real world income for them.

On early reports from the focus group I had hopes of this working out OK, currently I am pessimistic about the viability and continuation of a good bit of my income in game. If that happens all I can do is reconsider whether this game is still worth the investment.


Good, this is supposed to be hard content.


There is a difference between 'very likely to die,' and 'gauranteed to die.' You want it to be hard content? Good. It should be, but at the same time you're also saying that explorers shouldn't be able to survive the efforts if a cruiser can be outtanked by an Astero, which the individual before you mentioned it seems to be squaring up to become. I will wait to make a hard judgement until we see actual proposed number changes to actual raw health alongside the new resist profiles, but if it does become that a FRIGATE is the better option for endgame explo sites rather than a larger supposedly beefier vessel, then there is a problem.

The gods are out there. They watch us. They guide, they manipulate. We rally behind the ones we adore, and rain fire against those who rally behind the ones we hate. The question now is, to whom does your allegiance fall behind, dear Empyreans?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#326 - 2017-06-21 12:41:46 UTC
Sterling Blades wrote:


There is a difference between 'very likely to die,' and 'gauranteed to die.'


T3C are as likely to die doing these sites as a battleship in a level 4 mission in highsec.



Sterling Blades wrote:

You want it to be hard content? Good. It should be, but at the same time you're also saying that explorers shouldn't be able to survive the efforts if a cruiser can be outtanked by an Astero, which the individual before you mentioned it seems to be squaring up to become. I will wait to make a hard judgement until we see actual proposed number changes to actual raw health alongside the new resist profiles, but if it does become that a FRIGATE is the better option for endgame explo sites rather than a larger supposedly beefier vessel, then there is a problem.


Again, a dedicated exploration ship should be better then a generalist cruiser at its specialised task. That frigate is better at explo sites than a titan.
JC Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#327 - 2017-06-21 13:10:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
JC Mieyli wrote:

how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake


Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship?

im just asking how many hacs it takes to kill a rattlesnake
also is there a reason they shouldnt be compared
they are both ships
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#328 - 2017-06-21 13:17:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Again, a dedicated exploration ship should be better then a generalist cruiser at its specialised task. That frigate is better at explo sites than a titan.

Well, we don't have T2 exploration cruisers, so why shouldn't we let the T3Cs to be? This is most likely the only role that doesn't overlap with any T2 cruisers.
Also, while the T2 explorer frigates are more fragile than the Astero, with level 4 cov-ops skill they actually have better probe bonuses. So there is no reason why we shouldn't make a T2 or in this case T3 cruiser that at some point becomes a better explorer than the Stratios.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#329 - 2017-06-21 13:42:27 UTC
JC Mieyli wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
JC Mieyli wrote:

how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake


Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship?

im just asking how many hacs it takes to kill a rattlesnake
also is there a reason they shouldnt be compared
they are both ships

If the ships are balanced correctly and intuitively it should take less HACs than T3. This though is not an issues with HACs because in the scope of cruisers they are fine, T3C are what are out of alignment with other cruisers.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#330 - 2017-06-21 14:30:53 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:

Well, we don't have T2 exploration cruisers, so why shouldn't we let the T3Cs to be? This is most likely the only role that doesn't overlap with any T2 cruisers.


Because they are not specialist cruisers.

Dior Ambraelle wrote:

Also, while the T2 explorer frigates are more fragile than the Astero, with level 4 cov-ops skill they actually have better probe bonuses. So there is no reason why we shouldn't make a T2 or in this case T3 cruiser that at some point becomes a better explorer than the Stratios.


They have better probe bonuses because they are specialised, T3C are not specialised, they are generalists. If you want a specialised exploration cruiser with powerful probe bonuses then ask for a new T2 exploration cruiser.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#331 - 2017-06-21 14:46:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:

Well, we don't have T2 exploration cruisers, so why shouldn't we let the T3Cs to be? This is most likely the only role that doesn't overlap with any T2 cruisers.


Because they are not specialist cruisers.

Dior Ambraelle wrote:

Also, while the T2 explorer frigates are more fragile than the Astero, with level 4 cov-ops skill they actually have better probe bonuses. So there is no reason why we shouldn't make a T2 or in this case T3 cruiser that at some point becomes a better explorer than the Stratios.


They have better probe bonuses because they are specialised, T3C are not specialised, they are generalists. If you want a specialised exploration cruiser with powerful probe bonuses then ask for a new T2 exploration cruiser.

It's not fun to argue with you if all you're doing is keep repeating the same thing over and over again, while ignoring all options and possibilities that would change these ships.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#332 - 2017-06-21 15:49:56 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dior Ambraelle wrote:

It's not fun to argue with you if all you're doing is keep repeating the same thing over and over again, while ignoring all options and possibilities that would change these ships.


I have to keep on repeating myself because you are ignoring fundamental parts of ship balance. Namely a generalist ship cannot be the best at any given task.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#333 - 2017-06-21 15:55:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:

It's not fun to argue with you if all you're doing is keep repeating the same thing over and over again, while ignoring all options and possibilities that would change these ships.


I have to keep on repeating myself because you are ignoring fundamental parts of ship balance. Namely a generalist ship cannot be the best at any given task.


quite.. besides the cloaky nullification combo Roll

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
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#334 - 2017-06-21 16:45:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:

It's not fun to argue with you if all you're doing is keep repeating the same thing over and over again, while ignoring all options and possibilities that would change these ships.


I have to keep on repeating myself because you are ignoring fundamental parts of ship balance. Namely a generalist ship cannot be the best at any given task.

T3Ds can switch between modes to have better damage, better defense or better speed than the other destroyers. Do they count as generalist too?
And if not being specialized makes you weaker, then Loki should actually need to dual tank to have a defense that you can call decent at least. Because having bonus to both armor and shield doesn't look specialized to me.

Why not simply remove the whole "generalist" term from the rule book and simply say that the T3 ships are playing by their own rules? So T3Cs could become explorer ships with the ability to mimic the functions of other ships even if not so efficiently.
Alternatively, Arazu, Falcon, Pilgrim and Rapier should lose their e-war abilities to become explorer cruisers instead.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#335 - 2017-06-21 17:04:00 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:

T3Ds can switch between modes to have better damage, better defense or better speed than the other destroyers. Do they count as generalist too?


Supposed to, but they suffer from the exact same problems that have dogged the T3C. Namely that they were horrendously overpowered and still are compared to the other destroyers.

Dior Ambraelle wrote:

And if not being specialized makes you weaker, then Loki should actually need to dual tank to have a defense that you can call decent at least. Because having bonus to both armor and shield doesn't look specialized to me.


If the loki is better than a recon at being a recon then it needs to be nerfed.

Dior Ambraelle wrote:

Why not simply remove the whole "generalist" term from the rule book and simply say that the T3 ships are playing by their own rules? So T3Cs could become explorer ships with the ability to mimic the functions of other ships even if not so efficiently.
Alternatively, Arazu, Falcon, Pilgrim and Rapier should lose their e-war abilities to become explorer cruisers instead.


Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years.
JC Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#336 - 2017-06-21 17:22:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years.

maybe they used to years ago but not anymore
meta changed a lot since those days
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#337 - 2017-06-21 17:41:52 UTC
JC Mieyli wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years.

maybe they used to years ago but not anymore
meta changed a lot since those days


Yea, its dominated by a handful of overpowered ships, this change goes a long way to fixing that.
BESTER bm
Doomheim
#338 - 2017-06-21 17:42:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Sterling Blades wrote:
but if it does become that a FRIGATE is the better option for endgame explo sites rather than a larger supposedly beefier vessel, then there is a problem.


Again, a dedicated exploration ship should be better then a generalist cruiser at its specialised task. That frigate is better at explo sites than a titan.


You are twsting the argument to suit your needs here. You are trying to blanket the argument with basic and frankly non applicable comments. There currently is no high end exploration ship capabale of running the high end exploration sites with acceptable risk. The only ship able to do this is a T3C right now and post nerf that option seems to be gone. Many people have spends serious time and effort getting skilled in to these ships and the required fits which also carry a 1B pricetag. CCP is about to wipe out all that work and investment and apparently will not care one bit about this.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#339 - 2017-06-21 17:49:01 UTC
BESTER bm wrote:


You are twsting the argument to suit your needs here. You are trying to blanket the argument with basic and frankly non applicable comments. There currently is no high end exploration ship capabale of running the high end exploration sites with acceptable risk. The only ship able to do this is a T3C right now and post nerf that option seems to be gone. Many people have spends serious time and effort getting skilled in to these ships and the required fits which also carry a 1B pricetag. CCP is about to wipe out all that work and investment and apparently will not care one bit about this.


They nerfed ships worth 120 billion out of anomaly ratting (tacking titan nerfs).

Your easy ride is over, this content is going back to being difficult and hopefully that also means the supply of the high end gear out of these sites become more rare. You are going to have to adapt, just like everyone else that has had their golden goose nerfed.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#340 - 2017-06-21 19:08:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
BESTER bm wrote:


You are twsting the argument to suit your needs here. You are trying to blanket the argument with basic and frankly non applicable comments. There currently is no high end exploration ship capabale of running the high end exploration sites with acceptable risk. The only ship able to do this is a T3C right now and post nerf that option seems to be gone. Many people have spends serious time and effort getting skilled in to these ships and the required fits which also carry a 1B pricetag. CCP is about to wipe out all that work and investment and apparently will not care one bit about this.


They nerfed ships worth 120 billion out of anomaly ratting (tacking titan nerfs).

Your easy ride is over, this content is going back to being difficult and hopefully that also means the supply of the high end gear out of these sites become more rare. You are going to have to adapt, just like everyone else that has had their golden goose nerfed.

For the love of pod please stop teaching pvers how to do pve content. Nobody here teaching you how to fit your Mega. You don't even know what drops are from those sites. Sleeper sites are made to be high end content, I guess superior sites scaled to be done in BS hull. Guess what, nobody will do exploration in BS hull because they are non mobile after warp changes, and mobility is the number one for any explorer. Powerfull combo cloak+nulli should be nerfed but not by the cost of explorers.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville