These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#221 - 2017-06-13 11:36:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Dior Ambraelle
Rek Seven wrote:
I don't like the 7.5% rep bonus for the cloak/probe subsystem. It will either limit the use too much or will be unused when the ship is part of a fleet. It would be much better to have a resistance bonus.

I'm very disappointing that CCP didn't take this opportunity to add a few new subsystems. I would like to see a set of industrial subsystems for industry which would have bonuses/roles for the following:

Gas mining amount bonus (offensive sub): This should enable the players to create the best gas mining ship in the game. i.e. better than the venture

Mass reduction (defensive sub): Reduces the mass of a T3 so that they can fit though a frigate hole but reduces the tank of the T3

Increase cargo hold (core): allows the T3 to be used as a transport ship or increases hole for mining

Personally I would separate the cloak and the probes, I think the "exploration equipment" should be a core system. This way you could make a well tanked explorer or hunter. Explorers would benefit from the tank at sleeper sites for example, while hunters could make better PVP fits.
But CCP still wants to push the CPU and the powergrid core systems for some reason. Weren't these on the list of over/underused systems by the way?

Also, these are combat ships not industrials. You have to wait for a similar modular T3 mining barge/exhumer class ship to have that. Which probably won't happen since ORE already has more than enough ships, the only real missing thing is a medium sized gas miner that has some gas mining bonus and it's actually able to fit 5 gas miners - or even more.
The funny thing about the industrial T3 idea is even if it's completely unnecessary, it would probably be much easier to balance it well.

The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed.
T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role.
Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot.

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.

Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#222 - 2017-06-13 15:30:23 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed.
T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role.
Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot.


In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship...

Still reading comments in here, but there isn't enough info on new stats to really let us theory craft. I think a lot will depend on resist profiles, powergrid, and cpu. There are some potentially worrying ewar and tank slot combo's with the revisions. Again, I would say that until you can put some numbers behind them using the 'old' t3c stats isn't going to give you a good idea of their power.
Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#223 - 2017-06-13 15:46:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
@ Dior Ambraelle, you are not wrong but all i would say is that even though you may feel the T3 industrial is not needed or that we already have suitable ORE alternatives, i feel that adding these would diversify the ship class and help maintain demand for T3 components.

Within wormhole space we would see more people gas mining (or ore/ice mining if they had bonuses) in expensive ships, which creates a much more worthwhile target over the 1mil isk venture.

Good idea moving the cloak/probe to the core sub.
Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2017-06-13 15:52:16 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:

In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship...


Make the cargo sub a propulsion sub and don't give it anywhere near the capacity of a transport ship. Problem solved.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#225 - 2017-06-13 16:36:36 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship...

I don't want nullified transports, but my Hecate has more cargo hold than my Proteus, which isn't just a bigger ship but because of it's modularity it actually does need more than an average cruiser.

@Rek Seven: I would only move the probe and analyzer systems to the core, the cloak would stay in defense. The cloak gives a huge advantage that needs to be balanced somewhere. We already have enough offensive systems, and losing potential e-war bonus is not really a big deal for a lot of people.

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
#226 - 2017-06-13 17:16:35 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship...

I don't want nullified transports, but my Hecate has more cargo hold than my Proteus, which isn't just a bigger ship but because of it's modularity it actually does need more than an average cruiser.

@Rek Seven: I would only move the probe and analyzer systems to the core, the cloak would stay in defense. The cloak gives a huge advantage that needs to be balanced somewhere. We already have enough offensive systems, and losing potential e-war bonus is not really a big deal for a lot of people.



agreed that having explo sub tied to cloak is about as borked as the current T3 sub layout.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#227 - 2017-06-13 18:33:06 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed.
T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role.
Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot.


In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship...

Still reading comments in here, but there isn't enough info on new stats to really let us theory craft. I think a lot will depend on resist profiles, powergrid, and cpu. There are some potentially worrying ewar and tank slot combo's with the revisions. Again, I would say that until you can put some numbers behind them using the 'old' t3c stats isn't going to give you a good idea of their power.


Bumping it up to 450m3 should do the trick if they also reuce the subsystem size from 40m3 down to 10m3.
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#228 - 2017-06-13 22:01:27 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed.
T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role.
Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot.


In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship...

Still reading comments in here, but there isn't enough info on new stats to really let us theory craft. I think a lot will depend on resist profiles, powergrid, and cpu. There are some potentially worrying ewar and tank slot combo's with the revisions. Again, I would say that until you can put some numbers behind them using the 'old' t3c stats isn't going to give you a good idea of their power.


Bumping it up to 450m3 should do the trick if they also reuce the subsystem size from 40m3 down to 10m3.


Would also need a reduction in depot space cost and something added for about half a fit worth of modules, plus ammo
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#229 - 2017-06-14 01:26:58 UTC
Mhari Dson wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed.
T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role.
Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot.


In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship...

Still reading comments in here, but there isn't enough info on new stats to really let us theory craft. I think a lot will depend on resist profiles, powergrid, and cpu. There are some potentially worrying ewar and tank slot combo's with the revisions. Again, I would say that until you can put some numbers behind them using the 'old' t3c stats isn't going to give you a good idea of their power.


Bumping it up to 450m3 should do the trick if they also reuce the subsystem size from 40m3 down to 10m3.


Would also need a reduction in depot space cost and something added for about half a fit worth of modules, plus ammo

I think 50 m3 for a depot is fine, only the ships need to be designed to be able to always carry one with a few extra subsystems and the necessary modules, because that's how they most likely intended to be used.

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
#230 - 2017-06-14 01:42:19 UTC
Mhari Dson wrote:


Would also need a reduction in depot space cost and something added for about half a fit worth of modules, plus ammo


450m3 with the current depot should be enough room assuming the subsystems are 10m3.
Bromum Atom
Outplayed.
#231 - 2017-06-14 06:38:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Bromum Atom
MWD active-tank Legion (like this https://zkillboard.com/kill/61182921/) will have 7/3 slots, canoot fit web and become unsusable ship (by current stats).
With "Prop Mod Bonus" sub Legion gonna be to slow - 2000m/s with fleet boosts (2900m/s now)?. But can fit web (6/4 slots).
So no more reasons to use 50mn active-tank Legion, everyone will use 100mn AB legion in small ganks (fited like this https://zkillboard.com/kill/62313032/). Can 50mn fit have any chances to live?
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2017-06-14 11:02:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Dior Ambraelle
@ Noxisia Arkana
I'm just curious: did you see here any ideas that you personally like and/or agree with lately?

Also, @ CCP Fozzie
I know you have a lot of work to do, but could you also communicate toward us, sometimes please? As I was reading this thread, I saw multiple people (including me) having concerns about the exploration kit is tied to the cloak-based defense. Could you please explain why exactly do you think this is good/necessary?

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
#233 - 2017-06-15 03:07:23 UTC  |  Edited by: BESTER bm
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Also, @ CCP Fozzie
I know you have a lot of work to do, but could you also communicate toward us, sometimes please? As I was reading this thread, I saw multiple people (including me) having concerns about the exploration kit is tied to the cloak-based defense. Could you please explain why exactly do you think this is good/necessary?


Fozzie is not an explorer so he would probably not know/understand what we all do in the same way. While it certainly sounds like there is members of the focus group who understand and are willing to cater to our needs I am still concerned.

Keypoints I have seen here and which I would agree with:

  • Move scanning and analyzer bonus to the hull
  • Preferrable have a separate hold for subsystem mods and rigs (maybe have 6-8 internal slots to place inactive mods/rigs in)
  • Allow for refit from internal slots without need for mobile depot (add inactive/static timer for balance)
  • Where possible increase hold by 15-20%
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#234 - 2017-06-15 14:11:14 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
@ Noxisia Arkana
I'm just curious: did you see here any ideas that you personally like and/or agree with lately?

Also, @ CCP Fozzie
I know you have a lot of work to do, but could you also communicate toward us, sometimes please? As I was reading this thread, I saw multiple people (including me) having concerns about the exploration kit is tied to the cloak-based defense. Could you please explain why exactly do you think this is good/necessary?



There's a couple of good ideas - remember the focus group chat logs are public and linked in the first post by CCP Fozzie.

My favorite (personally) thus far is giving the t3s base stats and having the subsystems alter them by a fixed amount or percentage. It sounded like the devs were open to that idea as well. Not that it was my suggestion but I supported it for a couple of reasons:
1. It'll make it easier to do math when we get some numbers on what the nerfs will do to these ships.
2. It makes it much easier for a new player to look at the ship and evaluate it's worth somewhat without playing with 100 subsystem combinations.
3. It just makes sense.

There's been push back on having the probe tied to the cloak subsystem as well and we asked for it to be a ship bonus (Null FCs, lowsec, ded hunters, and others would benefit from that).

I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.

There's some good industrial advice (and exploration) being given to ccp as well (such as wh data/relic sites aren't worth anything because of demand for those materials related to t3c production).

We have similar concerns that I've seen voiced in the forum - certain slot layouts (8 mids, lows, or highs on some of the sub combos) seem like they could be a problem but until we know the cpu/pg and base stats of the ships I'm not going to say that they aren't workable.

Me personally, I've suggested/agreed that the RR sub can still fit weapons (since dual boxing or running c4s with a small group of RR tengus is something I've enjoyed in the past and doesn't seem broken). I also expressed concern over the logi sub's initial range with large shield reps and they may end up only getting a fitting reduction (again nothing final) for mediums.

There's a ton of speculation and my personal opinion after bearing/hunting in wormhole space for about 4ish years. There's a pretty varied group but I doubt we'll get it all right - so I encourage you to read what you can handle of our logs and make suggestions (you could just CTRL+F for fozzie to get a quicker view on what the devs are coming back with for discussion).
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#235 - 2017-06-15 15:00:14 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:

I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.

Recon ships are kind of weird, you can't see one on d-scan, the other has cov-ops cloak, but they are e-war platforms currently.
Maybe they could get a d-scan bonus based on the recon skill - up to the point where they can see the whole system while they at the sun, to make them actual recon 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.

Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#236 - 2017-06-15 15:44:40 UTC
Yeah, we were told that changes to the recon ships were out of scope - but I think that'd be a nifty bonus; although the amount of info on dscan in a busy system could be a little overwhelming.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2017-06-15 16:19:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Dior Ambraelle
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Yeah, we were told that changes to the recon ships were out of scope - but I think that'd be a nifty bonus; although the amount of info on dscan in a busy system could be a little overwhelming.

Being good as a recon pilot should need practice too, not just in-game skills. And this could be useful to find control towers that don't appear on the overview - which are being removed, so this function is wasted unless we can make hidden citadels that only appear on grid.

Also, shouldn't the recon ships have probe bonuses? For being recons, they don't seem to be bonused to find anything. For using cov-ops cloak and d-scan immunity, they should be called "anti-recon ships" at best.
To be honest, I don't think it's possible to make T3Cs completely different, without at least planning to modify the recon ships.

Also also, I can't ignore that we basically have 7 "e-war" methods that should be distributed between the 4 factions equally somehow, but usually only four of them gets bonuses from ships. ECM, web, scram and neuter/nosfer are used most often, this includes both the recon ships and the T3Cs. What about weapon disruption, sensor dampening, target painting and (because of the lack of alternative methods for Caldari) remote sensor boosting? Recons could get one set T3Cs the other, and the problem of function overlapping solved.

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
Ministry of Silly Walks.
#238 - 2017-06-16 12:29:38 UTC
Noxisia Arkana wrote:

I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.

For HACs nerfing the base resists was a step in the right direction, they should do less DPS than the HACs also.
Comparing the Proteus to the Ishtar, the Ishtar is the better ship in both tank and DPS now, comparing the Proteus to the Deimos While the Deimos has better tank now, the Proteus will out DPS the ship having 9 effective turrets with the Deimos having 7.8125 effective turrets.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2017-06-16 12:58:20 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Noxisia Arkana wrote:

I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.

For HACs nerfing the base resists was a step in the right direction, they should do less DPS than the HACs also.
Comparing the Proteus to the Ishtar, the Ishtar is the better ship in both tank and DPS now, comparing the Proteus to the Deimos While the Deimos has better tank now, the Proteus will out DPS the ship having 9 effective turrets with the Deimos having 7.8125 effective turrets.

What about the drone bay on the Proteus? I think that's an important detail of the balance too. Should it be Ishtar, Stratios, somewhere in between or lower?

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.

Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2017-06-16 14:28:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Noxisia Arkana wrote:

I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.


I think the problem here is that people view the situation incorrectly. You have to remember that DPS and tank are not abilities exclusive to HACs so it is unfair for people to say that this makes the T3 a better HAC. The problem is that the majority of HACs are poorly designed (especially for close range combat) and need better bonuses/abilities.

Recon ships are already better at their job than a T3, so i'm not sure what the issue is here.

Dior Ambraelle wrote:

@Rek Seven: I would only move the probe and analyzer systems to the core, the cloak would stay in defense. The cloak gives a huge advantage that needs to be balanced somewhere. We already have enough offensive systems, and losing potential e-war bonus is not really a big deal for a lot of people.


Ah ok. Personally i have no problem with the cloak, probe and exploration bonuses being on the same sub systems, it actually makes scene! My problem is the new cloak defensive subsystem is linked to a local repair bonus, which will be useless in 90% of the situations cloaked ships are currently used for. There are so many sacrifices you have to make to fit a viable local reps tank that it is often better to use a passive, thus making the bonus unused.