These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Strategic Cruisers and You

First post
Author
Ebony Texas
Un4seen Development
Sev3rance
#41 - 2017-05-26 23:43:33 UTC
this reads like a gigantic freaking nerf..

ccp fozzie-logic strikes again..

well atleast I have a deadline to enjoy the last of the great t3c era.


#BURNFOZZIE
Sir BloodArgon Aulmais
Fortis Fortuna Adiuvatt
#42 - 2017-05-27 01:59:56 UTC
Quote:
We highly encourage all players who will be flying T3 Cruisers at the time of downtime on July 11th get themselves into a safe location such as a friendly starbase or docked within a station/structure before the downtime begins. This will ensure that they do not get caught in a dangerous situation with some of their modules offline when they next log in.


Now taking bets on how many people login to the forums that day to say "OOMFGGFFF CCP BROKE MY TENGU WTF NO WARNING CCP WHY YOU SHADY I CANT TRUST A SHADY COMPANY UNSUBSCRIBED"

I'm thinking at least 5 threads on patch day.
Sylvia Kildare
Kinetic Fury
#43 - 2017-05-27 02:53:49 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
be nice to the legion, please.


be nice to the legion AND the tengu, please. Need mah lazers AND missiles.
Toxic Fuzz
Fuzz Industries
#44 - 2017-05-27 03:00:06 UTC
I understand the need to write new code to replace anything that is legacy, but the proposed changes make the strategic cruiser not strategic at all.

I think CCP needs to read the meaning of strategic!

Strategic:

Carefully designed or planned to serve a particular purpose or advantage.

A strategic ship should have specific advantages over other ships. i.e. long range, interdiction nullification, smaller sig radius, etc.

Relating to the gaining of overall or long-term military advantage.

Again, strategic means that those specific ships should have a significant advantage over others. This is why there is so much more training involved in being able to properly fly these ships. Why else would people go through the hassle of training so many different things to be able to pilot these specific ships well? All that hard work, and CCP is planning on nerfing them to utterly useless. I am tired, sick of training a specific ship because it has a specific advantage only to have CCP nerf it to death to the point where it can no longer be used for the purpose it was good for. I understand balancing, but when it changes the ship to such a point that it can no longer be used for what it was before, it seems out of line.

(of bombing or weapons) done or for use against industrial areas and communication centers of enemy territory as a long-term military objective.

Again, these ships should be able to pass through interdiction spheres, they should be light and nimble, able to do what it might normally take several different ships to accomplish. To be able to stay in hostile territory for extended lengths of time, and survive. This ships have a very special niche, a special purpose, no other ships can perform in their intended purposes and yet, these are the very things being proposed to be nerfed.

It seems to me that CCP is focusing too much on the graphical content, skins, ways to increase profit at the expense of veteran players. New players will never know or understand the differences.

It seems CCP is far more interested in newer players than their loyal veterans who have been playing, for years.

It seems CCP has taken balancing too far, to the point where eventually it will not matter what ship you fly, they will all do more or less the same damage and have advantages and defenses that make them all equal. Personally I prefer ships that are specialized, where one ship can take out several others in it's class except for a few others. This makes PVP, engaging in fleet battles, using ships for mission running or combat sites far more interesting and dynamic. Making all the ships vanilla flavor just seems like blah to me.
Otto Schultzky
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2017-05-27 03:27:22 UTC
If I was a gambling man, I would place a bets that T3 Cruisers / Subsystem Combination "adjustments" are going to be inversely proportional of kill board performance.

In other words, (possibly) "Rip and press F to pay respects" : "W-Space Gank" Proteus, "Rapier/ Huginn" Loki, Neut or Ham Legion.

On the up side the Arazu and Pilgrim may see more use, or more likely everyone and their dog will use a Stratios until that gets nerfed too.

P.S. Devblog with some new art and not many details, this is going to be interesting, as in "Hold my beer and watch this..."
Kiera Oramara
Roadkill Limited
#46 - 2017-05-27 04:04:53 UTC
Hmmm so while iam sure CCP will do whatever they think is smart (at the time atleast) dont forget that not everyone flying a T3C is part for a big ass null Alliance or whining as loudly as they can that they dont want ppl travelig true "there" space Roll or "damn the smartbombs didnt kill him"

So as the focus group is a bit one sided (as you can see under) dont just listen to those guys and think "Thats how everyone thinks / want it"...
IOW. or for short if you want Smile Dont fu the nullification plz

Quote:

Asher Elias -- Goon
Capri Sun KraftFoods -- Hard Knocks
Eustise -- It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
ExookiZ -- Scary Wormhole People
frsd -- Triumvirate.
Icarus Narcissus -- Last Calamity
lanyaie -- Cynosural Field Theory.
Lemkor Gengod -- Stacmon Production and Trade Institue
Mawderator -- The Tuskers Co.
Noxisia Arkana -- Deadspace Knights
progodlegend -- Test Alliance Please Ignore
Rowells -- Mercenary Coalition
StarFleetCommander -- - WE FORM V0LTA
Sturm Gewehr -- HYDRA RELOADED
Titus Tallang -- Ivy League
White 0rchid -- WAFFLE
BESTER bm
Doomheim
#47 - 2017-05-27 08:18:51 UTC
The composition of the focus panel is a hugeconcern to me as an explorer. It means that what I need/want will be ignored, if not actively advocated against.

These guys in general will not want to see the clocking plus nullification retained as it makes the T3C harder for them to catch, this function for me is a vital part of flying a Tengu and I may as well switch to Stratios when I loose this. And that is saying something as the stratios really is juts a slower/more expensive Astero for me as an explorer,
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#48 - 2017-05-27 09:04:27 UTC
BESTER bm wrote:
The composition of the focus panel is a hugeconcern to me as an explorer. It means that what I need/want will be ignored, if not actively advocated against.

These guys in general will not want to see the clocking plus nullification retained as it makes the T3C harder for them to catch, this function for me is a vital part of flying a Tengu and I may as well switch to Stratios when I loose this. And that is saying something as the stratios really is juts a slower/more expensive Astero for me as an explorer,

Fozzie said on fanfest panel that he want to retained cloaking with nullification. Covert will be moved to tanking subsystems so that configuration will have less tank for obvious reasons. We will see where this will bring exploration T3C.

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

BESTER bm
Doomheim
#49 - 2017-05-27 10:17:35 UTC  |  Edited by: BESTER bm
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
BESTER bm wrote:
The composition of the focus panel is a hugeconcern to me as an explorer. It means that what I need/want will be ignored, if not actively advocated against.

These guys in general will not want to see the clocking plus nullification retained as it makes the T3C harder for them to catch, this function for me is a vital part of flying a Tengu and I may as well switch to Stratios when I loose this. And that is saying something as the stratios really is juts a slower/more expensive Astero for me as an explorer,

Fozzie said on fanfest panel that he want to retained cloaking with nullification. Covert will be moved to tanking subsystems so that configuration will have less tank for obvious reasons. We will see where this will bring exploration T3C.



He was quite clear about his opinion that nullification is an annoyance and irritation to his PVP buddies and somewhat reluctantly mentioned that it was an important function. What I expect is they will nerf it to the point it becomes risky with a 'reasonable' chance for gate gankers to catch a T3C which is nullified. The cloaky nullification of T3D has been a major source of tears from these groups.

Cloaking will move to the same group as tank which for me as an explorer is really not good as it means I will be forced to refit to run for instance superior sleeper caches as I will need the tanking subsystem in those sites, that will then mean I lose my ability to cloak if I need to.

The same goes for CAP/PG which will be in the same sub system group as sensors/electronics which as i read it wil lmean I can't have cap regen _and_ analyzer/scanning bonusses at the same time. Again, if this works out the way it was presented it will basically exclude T3C as an option to run high end/high risk sites.

From everything I have read and heard it is quite obvious that the parties more likely to benefit CCP in the bottom line (those who generate loses and thus requirement to spend) will gain the upperhand against those who actually find and bring to market the materials needed to build replacements (exploration) as doing so will also benefit the bottom line.


The proposed changes would IMO end the suitability of the T3C, especially the Tengu, as an exploration platform and make access to some sites a lot harder. But again.. it's all about those who kill ships and thus drive the market and in doing so the bottom line for CCP.
Wander Prian
Nosferatu Security Foundation
#50 - 2017-05-27 10:31:30 UTC
BESTER bm wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
BESTER bm wrote:
The composition of the focus panel is a hugeconcern to me as an explorer. It means that what I need/want will be ignored, if not actively advocated against.

These guys in general will not want to see the clocking plus nullification retained as it makes the T3C harder for them to catch, this function for me is a vital part of flying a Tengu and I may as well switch to Stratios when I loose this. And that is saying something as the stratios really is juts a slower/more expensive Astero for me as an explorer,

Fozzie said on fanfest panel that he want to retained cloaking with nullification. Covert will be moved to tanking subsystems so that configuration will have less tank for obvious reasons. We will see where this will bring exploration T3C.



He was quite clear about his opinion that nullification is an annoyance and irritation to his PVP buddies and somewhat reluctantly mentioned that it was an important function. What I expect is they will nerf it to the point it becomes risky with a 'reasonable' chance for gate gankers to catch a T3C which is nullified. The cloaky nullification of T3D has been a major source of tears from these groups.

Cloaking will move to the same group as tank which for me as an explorer is really not good as it means I will be forced to refit to run for instance superior sleeper caches as I will need the tanking subsystem in those sites, that will then mean I lose my ability to cloak if I need to.

The same goes for CAP/PG which will be in the same sub system group as sensors/electronics which as i read it wil lmean I can't have cap regen _and_ analyzer/scanning bonusses at the same time. Again, if this works out the way it was presented it will basically exclude T3C as an option to run high end/high risk sites.

From everything I have read and heard it is quite obvious that the parties more likely to benefit CCP in the bottom line (those who generate loses and thus requirement to spend) will gain the upperhand against those who actually find and bring to market the materials needed to build replacements (exploration) as doing so will also benefit the bottom line.


The proposed changes would IMO end the suitability of the T3C, especially the Tengu, as an exploration platform and make access to some sites a lot harder. But again.. it's all about those who kill ships and thus drive the market and in doing so the bottom line for CCP.


Yo uare basically saying the war is lost even without seeing what the other side is fielding.

There is no details on the subsystem attributes OR bonuses. I'd wait until we at least get those out before running in circles and shouting that the sky is falling....

There's quite a few smart people in the focus group, even a few industrials got in there. I'm pretty sure there will be people bringing your usage-case into the table as well.

Wormholer for life.

Erve Auscent
Doomheim
#51 - 2017-05-27 11:04:45 UTC
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! PLEASE REMOVE THE SKILL LOSS!
DeadDuck
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#52 - 2017-05-27 11:39:32 UTC
yes please remove the skill loss. I dont fly the ships because of that. And dont even start with the skill injection crap...
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#53 - 2017-05-27 12:03:52 UTC
DeadDuck wrote:
yes please remove the skill loss. I dont fly the ships because of that. And dont even start with the skill injection crap...


Thing is, its risk vs reward, you get a high versatility high performance ship but you risk losing 4 days of training time if you die, i'm fine with it remaining and i don't touch injectors
DeadDuck
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#54 - 2017-05-27 14:36:34 UTC
Cypherous wrote:
DeadDuck wrote:
yes please remove the skill loss. I dont fly the ships because of that. And dont even start with the skill injection crap...


Thing is, its risk vs reward, you get a high versatility high performance ship but you risk losing 4 days of training time if you die, i'm fine with it remaining and i don't touch injectors



The ship with rigs is already very expensive + fittings. Add to that 4-5 days of training. And the risk doesnt cover the reward. Unless you use cloacky crap, use them for hot drop or fly with gangs of 73474437 guys

The loss It's to heavy for regular use on pvp, specially when you prefer to go on very small gangs and usually tend to fight very outnumbered with much higher chances of dying.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#55 - 2017-05-27 14:48:15 UTC
Cypherous wrote:
DeadDuck wrote:
yes please remove the skill loss. I dont fly the ships because of that. And dont even start with the skill injection crap...


Thing is, its risk vs reward, you get a high versatility high performance ship but you risk losing 4 days of training time if you die, i'm fine with it remaining and i don't touch injectors

Nothing to do with risk vs reward. SP loss was there because they were OP (high versatility is debatable), they won't be now from what we seen so far.

CCP already has release date, so there is raw data about the changes, maybe it's a good time to share it? Aside from focus group. 1,5 month for changes so huge ships potential seems very short.

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

Ramius Decimus
Decimus Dynamics
#56 - 2017-05-27 16:23:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramius Decimus
Team Five 0 wrote:
T3 Cruisers overlap too much with other ships (especially Heavy Assault Cruisers and Recon Ships) and their dominance can reduce ship variety.

But isn't that the point? Isn't Tech III supposed to be better than Tech 2?

Other than general balancing between each class, Strategic Cruisers do not need to be nerfed. Rather, if you want them to be more uncommon, make them require additional skills or up the difficulty by increasing the 'Training Time Multiplier' of all of the subsystem and spaceship command skills.

The same goes for the Tactical Destroyers, they are rediculously easy to train into for Tech III....

Now I know this would make some people disgruntled, but the fact being is that T3 is suppose to be the elite state-of-the-art technology and shouldn't be a cake walk to qualify in operating. Even worse if they're surpassed by lower tech level starships; what's the point if any T3C configuration can't even match it's ship class counterpart?!

Just my 0.02 kredits.

Rear Admiral

Commander-in-Chief

90th Fleet

Caldari Navy

Toxic Fuzz
Fuzz Industries
#57 - 2017-05-27 19:22:13 UTC
Ramius Decimus wrote:
Team Five 0 wrote:
T3 Cruisers overlap too much with other ships (especially Heavy Assault Cruisers and Recon Ships) and their dominance can reduce ship variety.


But isn't that the point? Isn't Tech III supposed to be better than Tech 2?

Just my 0.02 kredits.


That is exactly the point, this is why it's difficult to train, this is why it's so expensive, this is the very reason why their is skill loss.

Strategic means you should be able to do multiple things with the same ship, stay in hostile space for extended lengths of time. Be stealthy, slippery, sneaky, gather intel or do combat/scanning sites.

Increase the sig radius and an entire tactic is wiped out, that being slippery Petes, even though you hardly see them anymore I for one use this fit when doing combat sites in low sec space.

Remove the reach, nerf the hell out of the ability to tank, and you effectively ruin these ships for doing these difficult sites and then what, forced to use a BS? Or???

I hope, truly hope that CCP does not screw this up. It seems like every time they make changes like this they alter a ships ability to continue in it's primary role. When the Tengu was nerfed before, it became a ship that was not able to continue it's role in single PVP in the way it was able before. That is something all of us pilots who fly TC3 dealt with, some of us training other TC3s so that we could retain the use of these ships in PVP.

The ship serves a purpose, it performs well in that role, I cannot even begin to imagine what benefit TC3 pilots are going to have if just some of the proposed changes take place. CCP should not be taking functionality away, and so far as I am concerned with very few issues they are pretty well balanced, each racial type having it's place and purpose.

Gate campers, interdiction pilots somehow believe that they should have the ability to capture every ship that moves through the gate they are camping. Just yesterday while on a low/nul sec roam I was baited verbally by campers on a gate for my ability to warp off without issue. CCP needs to consider balancing when making any decision to change interdiction nullification. For every ability an offensive ship might have, there needs to be the ability to counter it. Otherwise, what would be the point in gating anywhere if you know that two jumps off high sec into nul, there is going to be a gate camp waiting to overwhelm you with multiple pilots laying in wait? And considering that the proposed changes seem to me like they will drastically increase the price of these ships, why would anyone wish to risk the isk?

It makes no sense to me at all, nerf the ship to almost useless for it's intended purpose, then increase the price so that even if you can afford it, you cannot use it for fear of the isk loss. And then prevent it from entering any High Sec combat sites (4/10s currently) so that even if you do train to use the ship you are guaranteed huge isk loss, thus creating and driving the need to spend even more so that you can continue to play.

CCP better listen, or give me the skill points back that I trained on all 4 TC3s. If not, I'm not sure I will continue to play considering that CCP has shown calloused disregard to those of us who have played for so long, enabling CCP and EVE Online to be what it is today. We the loyal veterans that spend so much time in this virtual world should also be considered.

Please CCP, carefully think about what it is you are doing. Don't make the ship fit in such a tiny little niche that you make it utterly broken. It should overlap as it does now several different ships specially considering the time it takes to train. It should be better than all other lower tier ships. It should be special, something to strive for. People who fly TC3s well should be able to take pride in this fact. THIS is what keeps us coming back, keeps us buying plex, allows EVE to grow. We are the ones who go out into hostile space and bring back what is needed for industry. It is we who slip through space with billions worth of mods fitted to our ship and in our cargo so that we can change when we get to where we are going. It is us who push the envelope, who do things others do not, who fly solo where only gangs of gankers roam. Do not forget how important we are to the story that is EVE. Do not forget that we have worked hard to specialize in this particular area, and have a love for the ships we fly. Do not forget that we are also just as important as raging battles, corporations and groups. Do not punish us for our desire to be solo pirates, or explorers, or PVEers/PVPers. Do not cripple these ships, don't screw this one up, this is far larger a change to a ship class than you might think. Make changes responsibly, consider more the people who pilot these ships rather than those who do not train them and complain about their abilities. If they were not lazy, they would train them themselves.

Do not change things to such a degree that we are left with only skillpoints trained in nerfed skills. If you do, then at the very least give us the opportunity to recover those skill points without loss, skill extractors are not good enough!
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#58 - 2017-05-27 19:34:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Cypherous
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Cypherous wrote:
DeadDuck wrote:
yes please remove the skill loss. I dont fly the ships because of that. And dont even start with the skill injection crap...


Thing is, its risk vs reward, you get a high versatility high performance ship but you risk losing 4 days of training time if you die, i'm fine with it remaining and i don't touch injectors

Nothing to do with risk vs reward. SP loss was there because they were OP (high versatility is debatable), they won't be now from what we seen so far.

CCP already has release date, so there is raw data about the changes, maybe it's a good time to share it? Aside from focus group. 1,5 month for changes so huge ships potential seems very short.


They have already detailed the basic plans, reduce the sub counts, merge some of the lesser used together, this focus group will help nail down exact configurations, there isn't much to share :P
Ben Ishikela
#59 - 2017-05-27 19:55:49 UTC
i hope the refit feature gets some love. its THE uniqueness in design they have.
--> more cargo
--> less time for mobile depot or not needed
--> rigs refittable
--> less powerful than T2 but highly adaptable.
==> kung fu

==> therefor killing a T3C will drop lots of refits.


Maybe this can be achieved by modes like on T3D but with a higher transittime. and also not instantly (30seconds enough?)
Refit/depot mode: dont need mobile Depot.
Exploration/travel mode: bonus to warpspeed align and scannerprobe strength.
Normal/Combat mode: just the usual bonuses from subsystems.
OR
each subsystem gives a bonus to each mode. (but that would be a mess and too much for average Pilots's memory)

Greetings and HF
Ben

Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.

Ol' Smithy
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#60 - 2017-05-27 20:14:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Ol' Smithy
- I LOVE the idea of switching out rigs freely. Now you won't need to buy multiple T3s for different roles like PvP and can easily switch out your exploration fit for PvP deep in null without gimping your fit. This helps solo players a lot too who are far away from home. This is probably my favorite change.

- I imagine this is a given, but keep the covert ops + nullification function. I usually use the emergent locus analyzer too for the scanning bonus when using that setup in wormholes to get around.

- How slots change when switching out subsystems could be made easier visually at a glance that it is currently. Switching out preset fits is clunky and time consuming, especially in space at a mobile depo. The whole fitting system for T3s needs redesigned so you can actually use preset fits without a bunch of errors due to slots being added and removed during the fit. It pretty much makes it mandatory to do it manually.

- Remove the skill-point loss upon death. T3s are already expensive enough to lose without having that additional hit incurred and makes players more risk averse in them.

- Looking forward to getting updated art for them, and hopefully new skins at some point.

- Make a dedicated subsystem for extra cargo-hold space (or roll the bonus into an existing subsystem used commonly during travel like covert ops). Solo T3 players have to carry everything around all the time and it would alleviate the headache of juggling cargo expanders. Or just add a separate "charges" cargohold to hold ammunition since that is what takes of most of the space the majority of the time.