These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ModusOperandi
Celestial Geologics Mineral Concern
#81 - 2017-05-30 09:13:19 UTC
What will happen to the Strategic Cruiser skills? I have them injected, but not trained. I guess training them now would be a bad idea?
Rising Rider
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2017-05-30 10:01:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Rising Rider
ModusOperandi wrote:
What will happen to the Strategic Cruiser skills? I have them injected, but not trained. I guess training them now would be a bad idea?


I don't think anyone (from the players side) in here can give you valid instuctions on what to do in this occasion, simply because we don't have a clue.
Only the devs know for sure but i doubt that they will tell you something more than what is already revealed.
In my opinion follow your instincts in cases like this and hope for the best. At least you have the luxury , at this point, to wait end see and then decide.Most of us don't.
Cypherous
Liberty Rogues
Aprilon Dynasty
#83 - 2017-05-30 13:02:32 UTC
Rising Rider wrote:
ModusOperandi wrote:
What will happen to the Strategic Cruiser skills? I have them injected, but not trained. I guess training them now would be a bad idea?


I don't think anyone (from the players side) in here can give you valid instuctions on what to do in this occasion, simply because we don't have a clue.
Only the devs know for sure but i doubt that they will tell you something more than what is already revealed.
In my opinion follow your instincts in cases like this and hope for the best. At least you have the luxury , at this point, to wait end see and then decide.Most of us don't.


It will likely work exactly like other times skills have been removed, the SP will be added to that characters pool of unallocated SP for you to use elsewhere, they may also opt to give you back the NPC purchase price of the skillbook, generally speaking you own't be left any "worse" than you were in terms of SP
Kayle Saviant
Strategic Defense and Deployment Directive
#84 - 2017-05-30 14:17:52 UTC
My personal request: dual tank all the things! Shield legion for the win! (Maybe with a Sansha subsystem?)
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
#85 - 2017-05-30 20:17:41 UTC
Why don't you want to remove rigs from t3 completely?

Member of CSM 4&5 ... &8

Pi Prophet
Industrial Pursuits
#86 - 2017-05-31 04:36:47 UTC
Let me tell you about T3 cruisers.

In Providence every night the Tengus roam through our territory. They can't be bubbled, can't be locked, and are cloaked. They carry cynos. They are the perfect scout ship. They lurk around, completely uncontested, like drones over Afghanistan. until they find a miner to pick on. Then they cyno in a fleet of 20 and hotdrop on the guy. Then as quick as they came, they cyno out, and the tengu persists to terrorize our region. We set up frigate camp with double sensor boosters and scripts for insta-lock, with heavy dps fleets. I haven't caught one yet We were in a fleet of 200 and we just had to pass by, because there wasn't a thing we could do to catch it. It is completely unfair to have a ship that powerful with the attributes of an interceptor. Even interceptors can't fit covert ops cloak. I am not even talking about their tank or firepower, just their inability to be caught. The nerf to the sig radius and mass will help our fast lock interceptor pilots tackle these things in a fair fight.

One solo pilot said he enjoys flying though gatecamps unharmed. Maybe there should be a cloaky nullified exploration ship. Just make it a frigate that can't fit cynos. Why should a cruiser fill the role of a scout in the first place?

No ship this powerful should be allowed to blast through our backyards terrorizing us without a way for us to defend ourselves.
Sylvia Kildare
Flux Divinity
#87 - 2017-05-31 06:26:22 UTC
Ben Ishikela wrote:
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.

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.


Interesting idea... or go the Nestor route and give them tiny little ship bays that can hold no more than a shuttle so they can refit off each other instantly.

Won't help a single t3c, but all you need is 2 and boom, refitting + rerigging in space.

I'm very excited about carrying alternate rigs + a mobile depot around to be able to change rigs on the go. I hope it will be possible, and not just while docked in station/citadel.

Ol' Smithy wrote:
- 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.


Good post. If they added an ammo bay (like the Hoarder's) to t3cs, I have a feeling they'd massively shrink down the regular cargo bay, tho. Double-edged swords and all that.

Updating the visuals, making sure turrets/launchers still work okay, and being able to design and implement skins for t3cs is indeed one of the main reasons they're doing these changes to number of subsystem types and number of individual subsystems per type.

I hope CCP will give us some way of getting Purity of the Throne + Cold Iron skins for our Legions and Guardian's Gala skins for our Proteii since t3c skins weren't a thing during those last three events.

Either have them drop during a future event, issue them to everyone for free (yay!) as a gift or put them up for sale as NPC sell orders or something!

Lastly, I'm very excited about the rig thing, too. However, I've seen at least 3-4 people call for the removal of rigs entirely from t3c fitting... I guess they want to just have rig benefits rolled in with the existing (or changing) subsystem effects, but... I dunno, (almost) every ship in EVE... and certainly every combat ship in EVE... has access to similar sets of rigs right now, it would be really weird to make t3cs the one class of ship that can't use rigs.

I'm most excited by being able to change my Hamgu to a HMLgu and re-fit missile rigs to match, as I use two range rigs on my HAMgus and obviously don't need them for a HMLgu.
Sylvia Kildare
Flux Divinity
#88 - 2017-05-31 06:35:14 UTC
WhiteOrm wrote:
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?


ModusOperandi wrote:
What will happen to the Strategic Cruiser skills? I have them injected, but not trained. I guess training them now would be a bad idea?


I mean, if you can't comfortably afford to buy a t3c / train into t3cs right now, guys... wait and see never hurts. But you have about 6 weeks to try out the "old" t3c system right now... which could be fun, or could just be frustrating once the patch day in July hits.

As for the skills themselves, the ACTUAL ship skill (Gal/Cal/Min/Amarr Strategic Cruiser skillbooks) are probably fine to train. I doublt they'll be removing or changing those, though the bonuses they give to each ship could change. Right now they're only useful to train up to 4 or 5 to reduce overheat damage. As most of the bonuses to t3cs come straight from the subsystem choice + your subsystem skill levels.

And on that note, the subsystem skills might be the place to not worry about getting them all to 5 since one of them is presumably going to be refunded or changed into something else we can't predict like they did with an indy skill back at Krius and like they did with the leadership/wing command/fleet command skills last November with the on-grid-boosters-only Ascension update. We're mostly assuming they'll be refunding either Engineering or Electronics but they might end up turning whichever of them into a new "overall subsystem effectiveness" support skill or something. I wouldn't put it past 'em, they love to recycle suddenly useless skills into something else rather than refund them all (some exceptions, such as the learning skills, ofc do exist).

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.


Indeed. After all, every single ship in the game besides t3 cruisers has less subsystems... but I don't think we all constantly cry about how no ships in the game are worth flying besides t3cs because they're so damned simple and lack any complexity. Subsystems are cool, but they're not the be-all end-all of ship fitting, period.

Hannah McPewPew wrote:
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.


If CCP tweaks the t3cs and still feels like there's too much overlap with HACs, then that would be cool... I would love more DPS on my HACs, I trained into all 8 of 'em on my main, probably my fave ship class (though I do love Marauders, Pirate BSes, Pirate cruisers, and t3cs + t3dds as well).

But I doubt it will happen. I think a (hopefully gentle) nerf for t3cs will have them feeling like any overlap with HACs has been reduced enough.

Another option that they sometimes use with different ships (highlighted by how they added range to the battlecruisers during their recent-ish balancing) is that maybe one class of ship will have more deeps but the other class will have more range. Half of the HACs are already sniper ships with one or TWO range bonuses sometimes, so... not sure they'd want to remove that. Give the HACs even more range (for the long-range ones) or application (for the brawlers) and let the t3cs keep the deeps advantage at the cost of range/application.
Arkoth 24
Doomheim
#89 - 2017-05-31 07:12:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Arkoth 24
[Deleted]

Nevermind. Enough of it.
Blazemonger
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
#90 - 2017-05-31 12:40:50 UTC
Pi Prophet wrote:
One solo pilot said he enjoys flying though gatecamps unharmed. Maybe there should be a cloaky nullified exploration ship. Just make it a frigate that can't fit cynos. Why should a cruiser fill the role of a scout in the first place?


So basically you are saying Nullification and ability to us a Cyno should be mutually exclusive? I can see that argument in that.

I have also long been an advocate of a specialized exploration ship which is cloaky, nullified and carrier an interceptor like vessel where the pilot can choose to launch and use the frigate to run sites while the 'mother vessel' sits cloaked, providing bonusses for analysis and hacking.. But that is a completely different topic..
Arcin Hamir
Right Click Jump To
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#91 - 2017-05-31 19:53:35 UTC
Rather than some special rule for rigs on T3s that lets them be removed why not attach rigs (non-removeable ) to sub-systems?
Orakkus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2017-05-31 20:08:55 UTC
In my opinion, the mass of the subsystems should be smaller too, that way you can have some capacity to change them out while out on a trip, maybe added cargo space so that such changes could be done using a mobile depot.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander

Gerark
#93 - 2017-05-31 20:27:40 UTC
Free 1 million SP to allocate, I'll take it! It's all about the silver lining.
Cartheron Crust
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#94 - 2017-05-31 22:34:12 UTC
Kayle Saviant wrote:
My personal request: dual tank all the things! Shield legion for the win! (Maybe with a Sansha subsystem?)


FACTION SUB-SYSTEMS!

Very good idea. Pirate
Sylvia Kildare
Flux Divinity
#95 - 2017-06-01 02:07:13 UTC
Rising Rider wrote:
Reading all of the posts in this thread, one thing became clear in my mind.Most people hate change and everyone is a sceptic.


A lot of people hate change... but I wouldn't say most. I'd say most people FEAR change that isn't clear in advance. If we don't know good and bad effects a change will have or even what the change really IS yet...

Then of course there's going to be some trepidation. But once the change sets in and the unknown is now (mostly) known, the fear goes away and then yes... do we love it, like it, feel neutral about it, dislike it, or hate it. Everyone can line up behind whichever shade on that spectrum they resemble and go to town on each other.

Till then... we shall fear the change, to whatever light or heavy degree.

Rising Rider wrote:
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.
... (snip)...
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.


But how is that any different from people crosstraining into all 4 (8) varieties of HACs or Command Ships or all 4 varieties of Logi Cruisers or Marauders or Blackops? Most of which takes way more training (at least with the skills to L5) than cross training into all 4 t3cs at present, even with subsystems maxxed at L5 x 5. Those x1s are a blessing.

Every time we cross train, we are either hedging our bets against future nerfs/changes by CCP or we are saying "hey, I really love this ship class and I want to try ALL varieties of it." Either way, if we find that the crosstraining is worth it to us, what's not to be happy about?

Also, I doubt there are many crosstrainers out there who haven't had at least one (if not more than one) great experience of "wow, I am so glad I already have this skill I thought would only be good for one ship I wanted to fly but now... wow, it's good for this and that... or this new ship CCP just released into the game... or whatever."

Harvey James wrote:
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

No rigs


Korvin wrote:
Why don't you want to remove rigs from t3 completely?


But why do you guys (and a few others) want to remove rigs in the first place?

On the one hand we have people complaining about the reduction in complexity since we're going from 5 subsystem types and 4 choices within each type to just 4 subsystem types and 3 choices within each type (though some of the choices now do some or all of what 2 choices used to do, mind you)...

And on the other hand we have multiple people asking for rigs to just be removed from t3cs instead of allowed to be unfit and refit at will.

Don't rigs add complexity to a fitting choice just as much as subsystems can? Aren't rigs and subsystems together wayyy more complex for t3c fitting than just subsystems (especially since we're going to have less subsystems)?

Just doesn't make much sense.

CCP is gonna have a hard time pleasing even SOME of the people with this rebalance... let alone all of the people.

Arcin Hamir wrote:
Rather than some special rule for rigs on T3s that lets them be removed why not attach rigs (non-removeable ) to sub-systems?


Now that is an interesting idea... hard to imagine how it would work visually on the fitting screen, tho... unless you rip out the normal t1/t2/t3dd rig section, expand the subsystems section to incorporate rig slots into it... hmmm... I like it!
MB ThePhotographer
poon-tang
#96 - 2017-06-01 02:47:45 UTC  |  Edited by: MB ThePhotographer
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#97 - 2017-06-01 04:26:54 UTC
Arcin Hamir wrote:
Rather than some special rule for rigs on T3s that lets them be removed why not attach rigs (non-removeable ) to sub-systems?

Doing that would severely reduce the versatility of T3's.
Choice of subsystems and rigs is not always the same, it depends on what you want to do.

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.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#98 - 2017-06-01 10:25:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Maybe it might be better to make the subsystems a 'chassis' with different components being plugged in on a hot-swap basis to provide the different functions. The components would be sized so that you could only carry 2-3 full changes of configuration for all subs.

This would be modeled as scripted modules in code with the chassis being the module and the components being the scripts (with appropriate reload times). Fix the slot layout for each hull and let the scripts apply % bonus and/or effects as required.

Make the components the expensive part of theT3C build and you have increased risk/reward around how many you carry. 3 full changes would mean you can effectively take 3 ships with you (like the t3d's), but get caught in the wrong config and you effectively lose 3 ships.

This should also be balanced to maintain the current WH exploration and industry or even boost it.
Hilti Enaka
Assisted Homicide
#99 - 2017-06-01 11:20:30 UTC
T3's biggest deterrent is the sink in Skillpoints if you lose it, flying this ship feels more like punishment. I wouldn't mind the sink in Skillpoints if they were fair more superior than they currently are. I just don't like being punished for trying to find content losing the ship as well as skillpoints its like a double wammy.

I think T3's don't have a defined role, its meant to be a strategic cruiser but it's anything but strategic. What are we looking at here? The value, in terms of strategy and tactical, of a t3 being more than a logi but less than a BS? I think these questions needs answering and only then will you know what direction to take the t3s in .
Elassus Herron
Akadeimia Keipouron SVK
Apocalypse Now.
#100 - 2017-06-01 12:23:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Elassus Herron
I'd like to reiterate here two excellent point I've heard elsewhere in the debate:

the point of shrinking down the subsystems is to create more possible combinations. A lot of subsystem combinations simply weren't used. Remember, there are a total of 4^5 = 256 possible configurations per race; how many of those actually see regular use? I'd wager fewer than a dozen. If the stated goal is achieved, we'd have 3^4 = 81 possible combinations, but many more of them would be viable choices. I'd *much* rather see that world.

Second: what if, as part of the SP loss on death, there was a chance to drop a mini injector for some portion of the SP? That would make T3Cs much more attractive targets as primaries, would reward attacking them, but might also help the pilot who lost it potentially recoup some SP if their gang holds the field. That, too, would be an interesting gameplay change I'd like to see.

Lastly, something I'd like to suggest (someone upthread mentioned it as analogous to the Nestor, maybe?): give T3Cs a dedicated subsystems bay to carry rigs and SSs, and allow them to provide fitting services to other T3Cs. Then, if you have a gang of them, and are packing enough spare parts, you can re-fit SSs along with everything else on the fly, allowing T3Cs to fill their role of being adaptable and versatile, even while in enemy territory with no docking available.