These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
BESTER bm
Doomheim
#61 - 2017-05-28 02:07:04 UTC  |  Edited by: BESTER bm
Wander Prian wrote:

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.


The 'plan' was laid out rather clearly during fanfest and only details remain. From basically every change we have seen so far recently we know that by the time CCP announced a change is coming they have most of it already locked down and what we get is mostly what is announced. From that we can expect the new subsystems to be as they were shown and I am basing my comments ion that layout, It makes tank and cloak as wel as CAP/PG vs sensors/electronics mutually exclusive. At best this will force a refit between travel and action and in fact will increase the overall risk fo using the ship.

Changes such as these will be locked down by now, one month before release, so the chances of any substantial changes will be minimal. The focus panel is a paper tiger IMO and serves more as a 'look, we involve our players in the process' role than an actual feedback and adjustment tool. Also I doubt any of the panel members would argue against their best interests as they mainly consist of group PVP players who would not benefit from anything I am bringing up here.

We've seen from recent changes that even very in depth and elaborate feedback and scription of issue, including solutions, are completely ignored and new 'features' released as-is. Point in case are the scanning changes which at first glance seem to be progress but at the core are really a few steps back with some shiny paint to cover it up.


Maaybe CCP suprises me, but I do not hold out much hope.
BESTER bm
Doomheim
#62 - 2017-05-28 02:13:25 UTC  |  Edited by: BESTER bm
double post.. can't delete it seems
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#63 - 2017-05-28 07:35:30 UTC
This makes me excited! Especially the change to rigs, but the promise to power up some of the more exotic combinations is nice, too.

Whenever I used T3Cs, I tended to waste tons of money because I kept changing rigs and subsystems to experiment around. So the ability to change rigs without destroying them is pretty damn important for me.

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#64 - 2017-05-28 10:26:33 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
As mentioned earlier I also think it would be a better idea to fix slot layouts and simply use the subs to apply % increases to stats instead
So how many high slots do you give a ship that, can use covert cloak, scanners, missiles and or hybrids. How many extra subsystems would need to be created to cover current uses but with fixed slot layouts?
What about mids? You need 3 dedicated to exploration plus some sort of tank, so is it 5, 6 or 7 mids?
Remembering, the more mid slots it has the more OP it becomes in other roles..

Fixed slot layout just doesn't work with a modular ship, so unless the plan is to completely redo T3C's to remove all of their utility (turn them into hac's) it won't work.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

WhiteOrm
Outer Space Random Corp
#65 - 2017-05-28 11:16:57 UTC
I just was going to buy my first T3C.. But now I will probably wait and see. They will either nerf it and it will become tanky good for nothing or they will "accidently" imbalance it into something like Svipul not long ago.. and nerf it later. Either way if it will not fill roles of HAC and Recon what can it be good for anyway? Command ship? Logistic cruiser? Relic hacking explosion tanking covops? Somehow I don't think anything good will come out of it.
If number of subsystems on T3C will go down, how by the way it will affect overall price of the ship?
Janeway84
Insane's Asylum
Evil Monkies Incorporated
#66 - 2017-05-29 08:21:12 UTC
I hope you got a chance to break a tripple t2 purger rigged gila with a cov op fit after the changes and not having to dogpile in more ships.
Imo the prot got whacked hard the last time t3 defensive bonuses where adjusted... P
I just hope its not going to be all focus on the big blob fleets meta game.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#67 - 2017-05-29 09:33:26 UTC
I hate these exclusive little Focus groups that just excludes everyone else.. isn't there already a csm for that?
removable rigs ... at 60 mil a pop for a set of T2 rigs.. does that really encourage versatility?

T3's need simplifying and cheapening ... 600mil plus isn't acceptable price for a cruiser especially when you add on spares (rigs/subs/mods)... and thats before you nerf them...

Needed Changes

massive price reduction ( dirt cheap subs so its viable too have lots of them in cargo too swap around)
No rigs
T1 resists (the EHP is just insane and the low sig + high resists is just a dumb combo)
build all stats/slots into the hull ( would make it much less convoluted and less time consuming and annoying)

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

Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#68 - 2017-05-29 09:52:27 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
I hate these exclusive little Focus groups that just excludes everyone else.. isn't there already a csm for that?
removable rigs ... at 60 mil a pop for a set of T2 rigs.. does that really encourage versatility?

T3's need simplifying and cheapening ... 600mil plus isn't acceptable price for a cruiser especially when you add on spares (rigs/subs/mods)... and thats before you nerf them...

Needed Changes

massive price reduction ( dirt cheap subs so its viable too have lots of them in cargo too swap around)
No rigs
T1 resists (the EHP is just insane and the low sig + high resists is just a dumb combo)
build all stats/slots into the hull ( would make it much less convoluted and less time consuming and annoying)


The price is mostly set by players, the BPC's and parts come from sleeper sites, supply and demand affect the prices, maybe you should train up some exploration skills and build your own cheap T3's :P
Blazemonger
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
#69 - 2017-05-29 12:13:10 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
I hate these exclusive little Focus groups that just excludes everyone else.. isn't there already a csm for that?
removable rigs ... at 60 mil a pop for a set of T2 rigs.. does that really encourage versatility?

T3's need simplifying and cheapening ... 600mil plus isn't acceptable price for a cruiser especially when you add on spares (rigs/subs/mods)... and thats before you nerf them...


Just guess here, but you also believe a Ferrari needs to be much less expensive..

These are supposed to be specialized high-end ships and that comes with a price both in prerequisite to fly and components. I agree with the Focus group comment though. That is more of a 'see.. we care' option than anything else and will not add anything to the probably already locked and set plans for the nerf.
Arkoth 24
Doomheim
#70 - 2017-05-29 12:20:22 UTC
Reducing the number of subsystems is a bad idea. When you try to make game "more simple" Star Wars Galaxies happens.
CPuiu
Tilica Nation
#71 - 2017-05-29 13:07:20 UTC
Arkoth 24 wrote:
Reducing the number of subsystems is a bad idea. When you try to make game "more simple" Star Wars Galaxies happens.

The very idea that "less subsystems = more simple game" is stupid.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#72 - 2017-05-29 13:13:13 UTC
Blazemonger wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
I hate these exclusive little Focus groups that just excludes everyone else.. isn't there already a csm for that?
removable rigs ... at 60 mil a pop for a set of T2 rigs.. does that really encourage versatility?

T3's need simplifying and cheapening ... 600mil plus isn't acceptable price for a cruiser especially when you add on spares (rigs/subs/mods)... and thats before you nerf them...


Just guess here, but you also believe a Ferrari needs to be much less expensive..

These are supposed to be specialized high-end ships and that comes with a price both in prerequisite to fly and components. I agree with the Focus group comment though. That is more of a 'see.. we care' option than anything else and will not add anything to the probably already locked and set plans for the nerf.


as it stands yes they are .. but they aren't meant too be specialist high end ships , they were meant to be a versatile jack of all trades ship, which is what they are talking about making it now, so therefore they have too adjust the cost and performance level of the ships thus making them no longer specialist high end ships .. which is the point of T2 ships/pirates ofc.

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

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2017-05-29 14:57:23 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?

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.

Add month of two for skill training and then what? We will have the same situation as now.

It was already proven that neither SP cost or ISK cost are good balancing factor.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#74 - 2017-05-29 15:34:03 UTC
Arkoth 24 wrote:
Reducing the number of subsystems is a bad idea. When you try to make game "more simple" Star Wars Galaxies happens.


Hardly, they are being reduced because some of them are just flat out worthless and the engineering and electronics are being rolled in to a single core package, whats the point in having 5 billions subs if only a handful are ever actually used
Akira Whitlock
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#75 - 2017-05-30 04:31:56 UTC
While i agree with most of the combining and shifting of subsystems but how will these changes effect the overshadowing they currently have on current HACs?

One more thing.
I think it would be best if we ditched rigs for the t3 altogether. My personal opinion at least
Sylvia Kildare
Flux Divinity
#76 - 2017-05-30 05:48:34 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


Skill loss makes them less fun to fly (dangerously)... for many.

Don't we want to fly dangerously and have fun? Despite EVE being real, isn't this a game we want to have fun with?

I agree, it would be nice to remove the SP loss. They already removed clone/pod insurance/SP loss... this is the next step. t3dds don't have skillpoint loss on death.

Jeremiah Saken wrote:
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.


And exactly, if the balancing is going to be overall a net nerf... then removing the SP loss will (somewhat) balance that out for t3c users.
Sylvia Kildare
Flux Divinity
#77 - 2017-05-30 06:08:24 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?

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.


If you wanted to make t3dds harder to train into, just add 3 new skills, one for each mode (tank, sharpshooter, propulsion) that you can train to both unlock (at L1? L3?) and increase the efficiency of each mode.
Hannah McPewPew
Holy Hunters
#78 - 2017-05-30 06:59:31 UTC
No one is going to fly a T3 that sucks in comparison to a T2. There has to be some benefit to using a T3 in place of T2, if we still have to dock to change ship parameters. Point proteus, neut legion, web loki and jamgu have more tank in place of less ewar effectiveness.

These ship configurations provide meaningful ewar bonuses without stepping on the toes of their recon counterparts. They were balanced and meant you could have beefy ewar for huge brawls without having to rely on a BS.

In the case of HACs, they could be given more dps to match their T3 counterparts. No more no less. They are already faster and more agile.
Rising Rider
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2017-05-30 07:55:22 UTC
Reading all of the posts in this thread, one thing became clear in my mind.Most people hate change and everyone is a sceptic.
It is clear,to me at least,that we are heading for a big nerf (usually described as "rebalance" ) and my guess is that very few people will be happy with it.
However this is not something new to most of us.It has happened before and, by the looks of it , it will happen again.
Regardless of what everyone here has to say decisions are already taken and we all have to follow.
Even the pilots chosen to test the "new" ships are amongst those who will use this knowledge to their Alliance/corp benefit and I don't think they care about different play styles etc.(Lets only hope I am wrong on this)
Overall all us (the under-priveledged ones) have to wait and see what our future with these changes will look like.
The only thing that really makes me hate the upcoming nerf is that when those t3 ships were introduced myself and lots of other players spent lots of time cross training for all subsystems and hulls because of what these ships represented at the time.This taken into account we are now called to fly some new ships that we don't know if we like them (that said, in my opinion it is VERY important to like something when ever you are playing a game for fun on your own spare time and, of course money) while in fact we could have devoted that time to train for something different.
Personally i would like to be given the choice to able to decide if I want to fly this new type or not.
Of course I know this is not going to happen but I just had to say it.
Arkoth 24
Doomheim
#80 - 2017-05-30 08:04:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Arkoth 24
CPuiu wrote:
Arkoth 24 wrote:
Reducing the number of subsystems is a bad idea. When you try to make game "more simple" Star Wars Galaxies happens.

The very idea that "less subsystems = more simple game" is stupid.

I'm not too smart.

Cypherous wrote:
Hardly, they are being reduced because some of them are just flat out worthless and the engineering and electronics are being rolled in to a single core package, whats the point in having 5 billions subs if only a handful are ever actually used

More subs - more choices.

If subsystems are useless or worthless - rework 'em to be usefull, change traits, fitting bonuses etc. But CCP just trash 'em, so T3C will become not "very special class" but just another boring ships comparable with T2C.

Less subs > less choices > T3Cs are less "strategic".

Rising Rider wrote:
Regardless of what everyone here has to say decisions are already taken and we all have to follow.

That's the point. CCP just make changes regardless to what community say. And they will never turn back no matter how many forum pages will be written by dissapointed players. New char list, new Aura, Evelopedia shutdown - you name it.