These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MrGTout Hucel-Ge
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#401 - 2017-06-24 00:33:36 UTC
Moksa Elodie wrote:
MrGTout Hucel-Ge wrote:

I don't see the point of having more M slot for active tank



I believe it is for a cap booster/battery


One more M slot and one less L slot does not help anything, a lot of tengu active tank fit work with 6 or 7 M. Move a slot from L to M instead will decreases the dps.

But one more M slot for passive tank means one more shield extender or one more shied hardener, which is way more helpful

And beside that, to be honest, new tengu can fit up to 8 mid slot, it is ridiculous for a cruiser, even rook and falcon only have 7 mid, am I flying a titan or a super carrier?
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#402 - 2017-06-24 02:26:55 UTC
Aside from the logistics/link improvements, I think this has to be the worst piece of development work I've had to look at since I began playing. Was hoping to get back to using these after a multi-year wait but they'll stay in the mothball dock, maybe next rebalance something will happen.
Moksa Elodie
Hijo de la Luna
#403 - 2017-06-24 12:29:10 UTC
MrGTout Hucel-Ge wrote:


One more M slot and one less L slot does not help anything, a lot of tengu active tank fit work with 6 or 7 M. Move a slot from L to M instead will decreases the dps.

But one more M slot for passive tank means one more shield extender or one more shied hardener, which is way more helpful



I had an idea for slot layouts in relation to subsystems and made a set of slot stats for each T3 ( it is more complicated than you think).

So from that experience of attempting to thinking like a "ship balancer"; I can guess that for a passive shield sub the +1 L is for the possibility of passive regen low slot module.

For the active tank subsystems, you don't necessarily need an extra low slot for cap assistance ( although there are low slot modules which can be used). So, having an extra mid slot for a cap booster/battery/recharger makes sense.

I am solely talking about individual subsystem stats not the effects of a full set of subsystems.

I agree with you about the messed up number of slots, they are why I had the idea for making an alternative slot stats.
JC Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#404 - 2017-06-24 13:04:12 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Mieyli
simple solution
give t3cs a siege module
make t3cs the marauders of the cruiser class
they can be sucky when the siege module is off
and really op when the siege is on

hm but what about seige logi cruisers
isnt that counterintuitive
idk i wouldnt mind having a few siege logi cruisers on grid
lol

what if they even got spider bonuses with siege
spider siege logi cruisers
JC Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#405 - 2017-06-24 16:00:06 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Mieyli
nothing
JC Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#406 - 2017-06-24 18:11:25 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Mieyli
just what what a ratlenake can do to cruisers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8juqZglc_Yc
WhiteOrm
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#407 - 2017-06-25 01:35:53 UTC
I know that you probably have given it a deep thought, but Loki with 5-2 high slots is not going to go far =/ Every time you do something like that we have another underpowered ship with spare non bonused slots fitted with energy neutralizers, rapid missile launchers etc that are placed there not because they are going to be essential in this fit, but because there is nothing to fit there. And then you say that it is Minmatarr versatility. 6-6 with total 6 high slots - that is versatile. Why not make Tengu versatile also? I bet lots of players will appreciate if it gets nice pair of railguns (without bonuses) and 5 missile launchers. If it really happened we probably woudn't have seen end of it.
It is good and all that you have decided to rebalance subsystem because some of them are almost never used, but you could also look at some ships, ask yourself why they are almost never used and at least do not add more to them. (Give us 6 turrets or 6 launchers please.)
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#408 - 2017-06-25 02:32:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mhari Dson
WhiteOrm wrote:
I know that you probably have given it a deep thought, but Loki with 5-2 high slots is not going to go far =/ Every time you do something like that we have another underpowered ship with spare non bonused slots fitted with energy neutralizers, rapid missile launchers etc that are placed there not because they are going to be essential in this fit, but because there is nothing to fit there. And then you say that it is Minmatarr versatility. 6-6 with total 6 high slots - that is versatile. Why not make Tengu versatile also? I bet lots of players will appreciate if it gets nice pair of railguns (without bonuses) and 5 missile launchers. If it really happened we probably woudn't have seen end of it.
It is good and all that you have decided to rebalance subsystem because some of them are almost never used, but you could also look at some ships, ask yourself why they are almost never used and at least do not add more to them. (Give us 6 turrets or 6 launchers please.)


One of those spare highslots is one that did not exsist in previous builds. It's supposedly a concession to us explorers (probe launcher) but the state of the post nerf ships is such that they're a worse alternative at a higher cost than the underperforming stratios.

EDIT: Reading over everything and thinking it over, exploration should be removed from these ships and given it's own. Make us a T1 and a T2 racial, with a very rare T3 (seed the T3 and it's parts into sleeper caches instead of WH space).
WhiteOrm
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#409 - 2017-06-25 09:17:56 UTC
Mhari Dson wrote:

One of those spare highslots is one that did not exsist in previous builds. It's supposedly a concession to us explorers (probe launcher) but the state of the post nerf ships is such that they're a worse alternative at a higher cost than the underperforming stratios.


The problem with this spare high slot is that covert subsystem gives you +1H and thus you get 3 non-bonused slots, which are sort of too many for exploration. You probably could use it to fit Covert Cyno or just Cyno in addition to cloak and probe launcher if ship wasn't squishy (and expensive) as it is in that configuration. No matter how you look at it, it is 1 H that does nothing, and 1 turret/missile point that is missing.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#410 - 2017-06-25 10:49:53 UTC
WhiteOrm wrote:
I know that you probably have given it a deep thought, but Loki with 5-2 high slots is not going to go far =/ Every time you do something like that we have another underpowered ship with spare non bonused slots fitted with energy neutralizers, rapid missile launchers etc that are placed there not because they are going to be essential in this fit, but because there is nothing to fit there. And then you say that it is Minmatarr versatility. 6-6 with total 6 high slots - that is versatile. Why not make Tengu versatile also? I bet lots of players will appreciate if it gets nice pair of railguns (without bonuses) and 5 missile launchers. If it really happened we probably woudn't have seen end of it.
It is good and all that you have decided to rebalance subsystem because some of them are almost never used, but you could also look at some ships, ask yourself why they are almost never used and at least do not add more to them. (Give us 6 turrets or 6 launchers please.)

I'll just write this too on my "why Minmatar as a faction is a mess" list. Seriously, way too many of their ships have this weird setup, where they get both turret and launcher hard points, but not enough to make a full fit, while only one weapon type gets bonus.
Mhari Dson wrote:
Reading over everything and thinking it over, exploration should be removed from these ships and given it's own. Make us a T1 and a T2 racial, with a very rare T3 (seed the T3 and it's parts into sleeper caches instead of WH space).

I think we should keep their ability to be explorers, but I can agree with this idea.

Personally, this is how I would distribute the subsystems:

defensive
#1 - cov-ops cloak with a still "decent" tank, but either no other bonuses, or make them able to use local rep and nanite paste while they are cloaked. I think this ability would be quite unique. Also, no high slot for the cloak.
#2 - buffer tank, level-based bonus to raw HP and/or armor plate (Legion and Proteus) and shield extender (Tengu and Loki*) bonus. This subsystem would have the lowest resistances (even T1 profile maybe?), but really good choice both for non-cloaky explorers and polarized weapon fits.
#3 - racial defenses, increasing armor resistances for Legion, armor rep effectiveness for Proteus, shield resistances for for Tengu and shield booster effectiveness for Loki*.

* No dual-tanking shenanigans!

core
#1 - sensors and e-war, this is a combat oriented system. 2 mid slots except for Legion, who gets 1 mid and 1 high slot.
#2 - scanner probe and analyzers. Exploration equipment bonuses, 2 mid slots for everyone. You may get 1 high slot if you ask nicely.
#3 - PG and CPU bonus, for some reason this seems like a really important bonus, instead of making the fitting abilities of these ships static. This allows you to fit more/easier, but no other benefits. Maybe the cap warfare resistance. 1 mid and 1 low slot.

offensive
#1, #2 and #3 - 6 high, 1 mid and 2 low slots for everyone, 6 turret or launcher hard points, except the drone and logi systems, they only get 4.

propulsion
Honestly, I don't really know.

Also, all configurations should have at least 4 mid and low slots and 6-7 defense slots based on the defensive subsystems mostly.

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.
Blazemonger
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#411 - 2017-06-25 18:51:43 UTC
If it was up to me:

1. Offensive
Weapons
ECM / ewar
Covert OPS

2. Defensive
Tank
ECCM
Remote rep

3. Core
Probe and Hack
PG/CPU
[have to think of this one]

4. Propulsion
Nullification
Speed subwarp and agility
Warpspeed


But the table has been set on this really, there's no chance IMO that anything will change from what is on SiSi now.
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#412 - 2017-06-25 22:06:52 UTC
Blazemonger wrote:
If it was up to me:

1. Offensive
Weapons
ECM / ewar
Covert OPS

2. Defensive
Tank
ECCM
Remote rep

3. Core
Probe and Hack
PG/CPU
[have to think of this one]

4. Propulsion
Nullification
Speed subwarp and agility
Warpspeed


But the table has been set on this really, there's no chance IMO that anything will change from what is on SiSi now.



And the focus group can't seem to discuss anything but fleet comps.
wtf Fozzie?
BESTER bm
Doomheim
#413 - 2017-06-25 22:32:49 UTC  |  Edited by: BESTER bm
I am pretty sure the focus group never got a say in the subsystems and that they were already in place with at best room for tweaks. The FC is a marketing trick by CCP to be able to buffer the fallout and to make it appear 'we' have a say.

Fozzie lives in his own little world and is provided 'input and ffedback' by a specific segment of EVE playerbase and from within CCP. I also feel his job is not to balance but more to make sure EVE meta and gameplay moves in a predefined desired direction more than anything else..

Then the FC consists mainly of gang/group[/fleet based players so it would make sense their 'input and advise' would center around that. It's also quite obvious this was by design as to not contaminate the CCP desired doctine which goes against solo actiuvity as ageneral rule and promotes destruction to drive PLEX injection as bottom line.

Anyone notice how CCP disabled hostfitting for T3C on SiSi a day or two after they updated the T3C there.. People quickly found the BS in the CCP mantra and story by making serious OP fits as long as you are going for DPS .
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#414 - 2017-06-25 23:22:16 UTC
Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play (and preferably pay too) ? If this is a true sandbox game then there should be no intended way to play it. You can be a solo PVE player in a PVP MMO if you want.

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.
BESTER bm
Doomheim
#415 - 2017-06-25 23:30:47 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play

It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#416 - 2017-06-26 05:05:54 UTC
Just hopped on the test server to take a look at some of the Tengu subs. It seems that logi t3s are being nerfed into the ground?

For example, on the Tengu currently on the live server, the Adaptive Shielding sub gives a 10% per level bonus to the strength of medium remote shield boosters. This bonus has vanished on the test server, and instead it gets a bonus to overheating remote shield boosters. This means that even a dedicated Tengu logi (not even accounting for one that might want to split between logi and command boosts) will be rather less effective than they are now, and will likely not be a viable logi option...

Is this intentional or an oversight?
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#417 - 2017-06-26 09:01:38 UTC
BESTER bm wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play

It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this.



The current promoted meta takes a huge dump on anyone not in large scale pvp, totally ignoring the fact null can't pay all the bills.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#418 - 2017-06-26 16:25:53 UTC
Mhari Dson wrote:
BESTER bm wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play

It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this.



The current promoted meta takes a huge dump on anyone not in large scale pvp, totally ignoring the fact null can't pay all the bills.

This only could make sense if EVE wouldn't have a closed, in-game economy.

Making PVE harder than it should be can lead to PVE players leaving the game. This would mean two things: no more ISK generated by incursions and missions, and no more fancy faction module drops from DED site runners. This means that the game will consume all of it's money in about a year, and suddenly the best equipment you can get would be T2 and the stuff you can buy from faction warfare LP stores.
Making solo play harder than it should be can lead to people interested in exploration leaving the game - the same people who usually avoid PVP because their cargo is worth a hundred times more than their ship. This also reduces the number of fancy blueprints and even T3 components.

Solo play and PVE are important because they produce the supplies that group PVP needs.

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.
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#419 - 2017-06-26 16:43:10 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Mhari Dson wrote:
BESTER bm wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play

It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this.



The current promoted meta takes a huge dump on anyone not in large scale pvp, totally ignoring the fact null can't pay all the bills.

This only could make sense if EVE wouldn't have a closed, in-game economy.

Making PVE harder than it should be can lead to PVE players leaving the game. This would mean two things: no more ISK generated by incursions and missions, and no more fancy faction module drops from DED site runners. This means that the game will consume all of it's money in about a year, and suddenly the best equipment you can get would be T2 and the stuff you can buy from faction warfare LP stores.
Making solo play harder than it should be can lead to people interested in exploration leaving the game - the same people who usually avoid PVP because their cargo is worth a hundred times more than their ship. This also reduces the number of fancy blueprints and even T3 components.

Solo play and PVE are important because they produce the supplies that group PVP needs.



Every summer since I started doing exploration (2009) it gets ridiculously hard to find sites during the afternoon/evening. This summer I'm finding stuff no matter the time and on top of that I've seen no new competition this year.
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#420 - 2017-06-26 22:51:32 UTC
BESTER bm wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play

It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this.



I don't think that's entirely fair. There are play styles that get wrecked with updated (for instance, the warp speed changes killed my love of battleships). However, in the focus group CCP is trying to accommodate a lot of play styles. I think it's inevitable that someone's going to get boned but they're trying to minimize it.

I watched Chance's video - I'm putting together fits now. I 1k dps /1.5-18k tank cloaky tengu seems poweful (although obv not in groups).


FYI, I've been on vacation a week. I'm still reading through (and sometimes skipping) a lot of text.