These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#241 - 2017-06-16 14:56:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Noxisia Arkana
Rek Seven wrote:
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 is is often better to use a passive, thus making the bonus unused.


I think the point is that they wanted to nerf the effective tank of cloaky T3s (whether solo or grabbing tackle) and they know the rep bonus is the weakest benefit that they could give it. I don't really disagree with their decision to do so.

Edit: active rep bonus also sucks for fleet work; which I think works well with the covops cloak. Rep bonus is better on solo ships (although buffer is the norm on most tackle anyway; and I agree it'd be unused often). It's like the Brutix - you can buffer fit for a good effect but it's not going to end up with the prophecy's stats.
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#242 - 2017-06-16 15:09:26 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Mieyli
im gonna iterate my 3 major complaints with the proposed offensive systems

legion laser sub is a waste of time
legion missile sub is a waste of time
tengu rail sub is a waste of time

out of all of those subs i feel the tengu rail sub is the worst off
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
The Gurlstas Associates
#243 - 2017-06-16 15:12:46 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
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?

Personally I would love to see the drone bay as a fixed stat on the ships.
That being said, the Ishtar has 375, Stratios has 400, VNI has 200, current Proteus has 225, I think bumping it to 250 would be OK but I could also see dropping it down to 200.

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

JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#244 - 2017-06-16 15:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Mieyli
i think all the offensive subs desrve a 25mb drone bay
its dumb to think any ship builder would build a cruiser without a flight of light drones to defend itself
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#245 - 2017-06-16 15:28:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Noxisia Arkana
JC Mieyli wrote:
im gonna iterate my 3 major complaints with the proposed offensive systems

legion laser sub is a waste of time
legion missile sub is a waste of time
tengu rail sub is a waste of time



Fozzie mentioned pretty early in the discussion (late may?) that the original spreadsheet some of the subsystems looked a little powerful and some lackluster. I'm sure they'll change; eustise, caprisunkraftfoods, exooki and others had pretty solid feedback.

I suggest reading the comments on the focus group; the spreadsheet was a first pass - and I think they're aware that there are some extremely strong and lackluster weapon systems:


Captured from the May 30th logs (conversation starts around 1500). The link is in the first post if you'd like to read.

ccp_fozzie @mawderator Legion drone/missile is probably the one that seems most likely to break things, but Proteus hybrid and Loki projectile also seem a bit dangerzone

ccp_fozzie One big one is that it's a form of cost that is unique and distinct from our other form of costs. Costs for ships can come in the form of minerals, moongoo, LP, ISK, special drops, and SP in the case of the T3Cs. In general we're looking to highlight and emphasize the differences between T3Cs and other ships rather than make them more similar.

ccp_fozzie well if you don't balance based on small subsections we'd only ever balance for highsec

ccp_fozzie what I had in mind in this version of the design would be that the cloak subsystem wouldn't have a raw HP penalty compared to at least the normal active rep one, but that the HP would be less concentrated into the main tank types


There's a lot of concern about niche play styles, creating differences between the t3cs and other ships, and making sure the weapon subs make sense.

Edit - I had to edit out the time stamps because the forum thought I was using html...
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#246 - 2017-06-16 15:38:17 UTC
@Omnathious Deninard: I'm going to quote fozzie here and say that I think the point is to make the ships unique from other ships not more similar. But I get what you're going for. As someone that lived out of a domi for way too long in my early eve career I have a deep love for drones and like extra bay space for when they get shot at... but I'm not sure that the t3c's should get that same luxury.

I'd also enjoy the bay as part of the base ship, but a blaster proteus with 100 mb of drone width seems kind of broken.
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
The Gurlstas Associates
#247 - 2017-06-16 15:53:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
@Omnathious Deninard: I'm going to quote fozzie here and say that I think the point is to make the ships unique from other ships not more similar. But I get what you're going for. As someone that lived out of a domi for way too long in my early eve career I have a deep love for drones and like extra bay space for when they get shot at... but I'm not sure that the t3c's should get that same luxury.

I'd also enjoy the bay as part of the base ship, but a blaster proteus with 100 mb of drone width seems kind of broken.

I am in no way suggesting that the Bandwidth should be a fixed part of the hull, if possible I would like to see it added or subtracted based on what subsystem you have on the hull.
Simply the drone storage section would be fixed.
Edit: also I think the drones need to be removed from the blaster sub of the proteus.

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

Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#248 - 2017-06-16 16:38:59 UTC
@Omnathious Deninard: ah the bay, I thought you were thinking both. Right now the blaster prot gets +25 mb and the drone gets +100. Seems okay. I think having the bay on the hull might be weird because you could end up with 25 mb and have a 200 m3 bay or 100 mb with 200m3; which would make the drone sub kind of crappy (less flights). The m3 is hypothetical, not based on any real numbers but illustrative.
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
The Gurlstas Associates
#249 - 2017-06-16 16:41:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay.

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

Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2017-06-16 19:04:17 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay.

I think even a 300 m3 drone bay would be fine. The main reason I'm not using the current drone Proteus is it's really low bandwidth and drone bay compared to other cruisers of the same price.

Noxisia Arkana wrote:
I think the point is that they wanted to nerf the effective tank of cloaky T3s (whether solo or grabbing tackle) and they know the rep bonus is the weakest benefit that they could give it. I don't really disagree with their decision to do so.

Edit: active rep bonus also sucks for fleet work; which I think works well with the covops cloak. Rep bonus is better on solo ships (although buffer is the norm on most tackle anyway; and I agree it'd be unused often). It's like the Brutix - you can buffer fit for a good effect but it's not going to end up with the prophecy's stats.

Here is a wild idea to make T3Cs' cloak unique: remove the local rep bonuses, but allow them to use local rep modules and the nano repair paste while they are cloaked, maybe with reduced efficiency.

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.

Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#251 - 2017-06-16 19:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Dior Ambraelle
Rek Seven wrote:
Personally i have no problem with the cloak, probe and exploration bonuses being on the same sub systems, it actually makes scene!

I would argue with this. A good example are the sleeper cache sites: if you screw up something you get a lot of dps on you.
If you tie the cloak and the probe+analyzers together, I see 2 potential results:
- with the exploration subsystem you have a fair chance to complete the site, but a little mistake will probably result in losing your ship
- with an actual tank based defense you have a good chance to survive when the site blows up, which will happen because your analyzers aren't as good as they should be

Separating the cloak from the rest means you can have a good tank and a good exploration equipment, so you only need to worry about other players.
If you are a hunter you have the same options: have a cloak to sneak up on people, or have a tank and better chance of winning, while you don't have to sacrifice your probing bonuses.

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.
The Gurlstas Associates
#252 - 2017-06-17 13:23:34 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay.

I think even a 300 m3 drone bay would be fine. The main reason I'm not using the current drone Proteus is it's really low bandwidth and drone bay compared to other cruisers of the same price.

The Proteus is not supposed to have a similar drone bay as the Stratios or the bandwidth of the Ishtar, it has options that both of those ships don't have, needing to sacrifice a little bit of drone bay is a fair trade off.
The reason I didn't like to use a drone proteus was the difficult slot layout it created 6 high slots, 3 turret hardpoints, 3 mid slots and 7 low slots is a difficult drone cruiser.

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

Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#253 - 2017-06-17 18:36:22 UTC
Although it is not a problem for my play style, I think that people do have legitimate concerns with regards to the cloak and scanning roles being linked.

Again, I would suggest that a new line of industrial/pve subsystems are added and that the exploration roles could be tied to this. This would mean keeping the 5 subsystem model.
Cartheron Crust
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#254 - 2017-06-17 21:54:38 UTC
Any reason why we don't have access to the google doc anymore? Changes? Smile
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
The Gurlstas Associates
#255 - 2017-06-17 22:46:46 UTC
I would expect it's because they are updating to the new figures.

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

Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#256 - 2017-06-17 23:26:43 UTC
Cartheron Crust wrote:
Any reason why we don't have access to the google doc anymore? Changes? Smile

Here are the new documents:
Legion
Tengu
Proteus
Loki

Finally some numbers!
Good news: free probe launcher for everyone and a dedicated subsystem bay.

The analyzers are still together with the cloak though.

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.

Edlorna Tinebe
The Elerium Trust
#257 - 2017-06-18 01:32:07 UTC
When I first heard that there would be a shake-up of the Strategic Cruisers, with fewer subsystems, I actually hoped that they'd get the same mode-switching mechanic that the tactical destroyers do. As a twist for the cruisers, though, the bonuses for each mode would be determined by the subsystems fitted, with the Core subsystem being always active. It seemed like it might make this "do everything at once" problem a bit easier to balance out.
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#258 - 2017-06-18 03:41:53 UTC
it looks like ccp dont hear THAT CALDARI DONT LIKE STUPID KINETIC LOCK

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

Ele Rebellion
Fat Dragon Mining Co.
Darwinism.
#259 - 2017-06-18 03:47:18 UTC
@ CCP Fozzie

I'm looking at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q0HSnCO8ZF5L_VdoIqPRBPqexbWAj2LPWJhhRh7BALk/edit

3 Midslots for proteus!?! This will completely kill it.

My Current Tackle Proteus Setup
HighSlots
-Covert Cyno
-Cyno
-Sisters Core Probe Launcher
-A-Type Small Nos
-Cover Ops Cloak

Midslots
-B-Type 50mn MWD
-True Sansha Warp Scrambler
-True Sansha Warp Scrambler
-Federation Navy Stasis Web
-Sensor Booster II

Lowslots
-Damage Control II
-Imperial Navy Enam
-Imperial Navy Enam
-Dark Blood Energized Explosive
-Federation Navy 1600
-Federation Navy 1600

Subsystems
-Graviational Capacitor
-Covert Reconfig
- Cap Regen Matrix
-Augmented Plating
-Friction Extension

Slot Layout
H5
M5
L6

I understand reducing the tank of the tackle proteus. But to cut it down to 3 midslots removes any effective role it could have as a tackler. I was ok with the original plan to go 7/4/6 layout (even though I didn't like it)

Also you are proposing a 9 Highslot layout with those subsystems in the link above. Did you realize this?
Eustise
Perkone
Caldari State
#260 - 2017-06-18 04:43:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Eustise
An explo update on the new numbers. Here's a sheet i've been working with: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KHX0UbkcCTQRtfmL1xIQ8TC8UytrS6N5Tm-jpCJsUDI/edit?usp=sharing

In short, we will enjoy bigger locking ranges, even with the -20km from the nullification system, given that we'll be able to fit the +locking range sub now compared to most current sub fits. We'll also enjoy a fully bonused offensive system as well as a heap of new cargo space that'll range from 430 to 490 with the +30m3 bonus from the covops sub, as well as a dedicated 120m3 subsystem storage bay (3 subs worth).

The good news aside... we're really in the crapper EHP wise. And if you DO switch to a defensive.. you'll lose the explo hack bonuses.



All T3's lost 17% resistences off the top 2 main ones. That wouldn't be the end of the world, but without a defensive sub (judging off a future explofit), we're looking at the raw HP of the main tanking surfaces each losing roughly 45% HP, and considering hull as well, we're looking at 38% drop in overall raw HP. Combined with the 17% resistences, it's almost certain that we may need to switch to a Defensive sub to run any ghost/sleeper caches.

I'll be asking and figuring out if this is part of the plan, but i'm honestly not expecting for a lot of consideration to be given to the ability of an 'adaptable' T3C to not need to 'adapt', aka, running the sites in full cloakynullified.

We'll be waiting for these to hit Sisi or get a custom Pyfa database rolled out, since we /may/ be able to run Ghosts with full tank cloaky/nullified, but tanking superior sleepers like we did before are guaranteed out of the picture.