These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#301 - 2017-06-20 16:22:40 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Mieyli
baltec1 wrote:
JC Mieyli wrote:
Uriam Khanid wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs .

a small correctionShocked

seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses
balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash


No that's good balancing, bad balancing is buffing everything else to match the 4 problem ships. We call that power creep and it's very damaging to the wider game.

so by nerfing t3cs to hac levels
hacs wont be in the trash anymore
cant say im convinced

also i think cses are fine tbh
theyre in a nice place and have a good role
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
#302 - 2017-06-20 16:29:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
BESTER bm wrote:
Eustise wrote:
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 c.


In short, this will kill the Tengu for use in Superior Sleeper caches. It will not be able to tank those anymore. It will not allow you to tank the damage in either solar or Sentries room from what I see and two back2back Massive Shockwaves in Archive room will kill lthe ship as it evaporates the shield with no time to regen. RIP explo Tengu

The reason why covert was in offensive is because in most case when used it will be used instead of weapons. Now, being in defensive it basically kills the ability to create a viable and well tanked explorer. When I come into a system cloacked and nullified, I am still seen (briefly) when coming in.. It's justa matter of combat probing to find me while refitting..

Basically negates the purpose of both Cloak and Nullification.. But then, that seems to be the whole idea.. Give the PVP crowd their pewpew.


If no other cruiser can run these sites then why should t3c?



there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#303 - 2017-06-20 17:06:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
zbaaca wrote:
...
Nasar Vyron wrote:
They really should consider changing these to require BC 5 and just label them as BCs. Increase the build cost a little further and call it good. I'd still call for a nerf to speed with this regardless but at least doing this everything will begin to actually line up with their power.


and old players benefit again , like ones that got free sp when destr and bc skill splitted into racial . what would you do if you are able to fly t3 one day and never-ever bothered to learn bc and anything beyond because they have no place in your game style , and now you have to get bc to 5 and you cant play your shiny ship untill you get skill , and sp inj will give you only 150k

both of options will impact fresh players only . and both are bad


Newbro - I'd be glad that injectors exist.
Vet - I'd be wondering to myself how in the hell I got so many SP that I only got 150m an injector and never thought to train BC or BB at all along the way. I'd also realize that I have time between now and patch day to train the old fashion way.
Both - I'd realize that nothing is ever set in stone in EVE and we will always have to adapt to our changing environment. This includes training to be able to fly a wide variety of ships should a chance be implemented making my current ship obsolete.

While I can understand BC 5 is a relatively long train if you only were willing to ever train cruiser 5. It's not a huge step in regards to attempting to balance a ship without having to completely overhaul a hull type that many have dedicated their playstyle around. I'm surprised more WH goers weren't originally pushing for a reclassification rather than a rework from the very beginning.

Even if they were to announce these changes today, you would still have the time to train BC 5 long before the patch hits for at least 1 of the hulls. Possibly all 4 if CCP decided to push the date further in order to give people that much more time to train so when the patch did hit nobody would be caught off guard.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#304 - 2017-06-20 18:40:07 UTC
JC Mieyli wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
JC Mieyli wrote:
Uriam Khanid wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs .

a small correctionShocked

seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses
balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash


No that's good balancing, bad balancing is buffing everything else to match the 4 problem ships. We call that power creep and it's very damaging to the wider game.

so by nerfing t3cs to hac levels
hacs wont be in the trash anymore
cant say im convinced

also i think cses are fine tbh
theyre in a nice place and have a good role


HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#305 - 2017-06-20 18:43:26 UTC
Mhari Dson wrote:



there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null.


So yea, if a recon cannot run these sites then why should a T3C? The whole point of these high end sites is to offer great reward for high risk. T3C have made it rather low risk so its a good thing them not being able to run them anymore.
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#306 - 2017-06-20 19:37:31 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Mieyli
baltec1 wrote:
HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers.

which other cruisers
the ones all in the trash

only (non t3) cruisers i see are
gila
cyna
stratios

all pirates
maybe a vaga dies or a cerb dies
meaningless garbage

theres only one good cruiser and that is the cruiser you dont see
pilgrim
stratios <- this one is garbage
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#307 - 2017-06-20 20:40:45 UTC
JC Mieyli wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers.

which other cruisers
the ones all in the trash

only (non t3) cruisers i see are
gila
cyna
stratios

all pirates
maybe a vaga dies or a cerb dies
meaningless garbage

theres only one good cruiser and that is the cruiser you dont see
pilgrim
stratios <- this one is garbage


Thats because you are used to T3C.
Moth Eisig
#308 - 2017-06-20 20:44:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Mhari Dson wrote:



there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null.


So yea, if a recon cannot run these sites then why should a T3C? The whole point of these high end sites is to offer great reward for high risk. T3C have made it rather low risk so its a good thing them not being able to run them anymore.


Sleeper caches were basically made to give exploration t3s a reason for existing after rats were removed from exloration sites. If t3s can't do those sites any better than an Astero, what's the point of ever using a t3 for exploration? On top of that tou'd have game content that never gets used. Doing exploration sites in a billion isk ship not fitted for pvp was already pretty good risk for the benefit.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#309 - 2017-06-20 20:51:04 UTC
Moth Eisig wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Mhari Dson wrote:



there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null.


So yea, if a recon cannot run these sites then why should a T3C? The whole point of these high end sites is to offer great reward for high risk. T3C have made it rather low risk so its a good thing them not being able to run them anymore.


Sleeper caches were basically made to give exploration t3s a reason for existing after rats were removed from exloration sites. If t3s can't do those sites any better than an Astero, what's the point of ever using a t3 for exploration? On top of that tou'd have game content that never gets used. Doing exploration sites in a billion isk ship not fitted for pvp was already pretty good risk for the benefit.


Why should the T3C which is supposed to be a generalist be as good or better than a specialised ship?
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#310 - 2017-06-20 21:00:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Moth Eisig wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Mhari Dson wrote:



there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null.


So yea, if a recon cannot run these sites then why should a T3C? The whole point of these high end sites is to offer great reward for high risk. T3C have made it rather low risk so its a good thing them not being able to run them anymore.


Sleeper caches were basically made to give exploration t3s a reason for existing after rats were removed from exloration sites. If t3s can't do those sites any better than an Astero, what's the point of ever using a t3 for exploration? On top of that tou'd have game content that never gets used. Doing exploration sites in a billion isk ship not fitted for pvp was already pretty good risk for the benefit.


Why should the T3C which is supposed to be a generalist be as good or better than a specialised ship?

Again: what does "generalist" mean?
Also, why would you make a ship that's more expensive than the T2 ships, and has penalty for losing it if it should be weaker than every T2 and pirate cruiser? If T3Cs were an upgrade on T2 ships that can combine their abilities and would require all T2 cruiser skills then we wouldn't have this mess. You can't blame the ships for being broken if the rule makes no sense.

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
#311 - 2017-06-20 21:07:06 UTC  |  Edited by: BESTER bm
baltec1 wrote:
If no other cruiser can run these sites then why should t3c?


Because these are not any other Cruisers, they are T3/higher end/more flexible/more powerful cruisers. T3C come with a hefty skill requiremant, will generally cost a good bit more and carry a significant penalty for losing it beyond just losing the ship. Seems to me that would call for some balance..

Instead it seems CCP and the pewew crowd in the game seem to prefer it to be 'just another cruiser' as they are unable to deal with it otherwise.


baltec1 wrote:
Why should the T3C which is supposed to be a generalist be as good or better than a specialised ship?


First off, it appears you have never run these sites so you would not know what you are talking about. Second, there really is no alternative to the T3C to run these sites. There is nothing beyond an explo fit T3C that wil lgive me the bonusses on scanning/hacking and even the T3C is relatively slow for this purpose. Frankly, the rewards from these sites barely justify the investment of SP and ship/fit required

Fozzie said they wanted to preserve the exploration role, it is quite clear from the latest information he either lied or has no clue about what is required to run these sites.
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#312 - 2017-06-20 21:08:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
JC Mieyli wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers.

which other cruisers
the ones all in the trash

only (non t3) cruisers i see are
gila
cyna
stratios

all pirates
maybe a vaga dies or a cerb dies
meaningless garbage

theres only one good cruiser and that is the cruiser you dont see
pilgrim
stratios <- this one is garbage


Thats because you are used to T3C.

how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake
Matthias Ancaladron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#313 - 2017-06-20 21:39:09 UTC
So are we all agreed?

Delete t3s entirely from game yet? Yes? Great!

Good job everyone, last one out of thread turn off lights.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#314 - 2017-06-20 22:09:51 UTC
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
So are we all agreed?

Delete t3s entirely from game yet? Yes? Great!

Good job everyone, last one out of thread turn off lights.

I never said we should delete them.
The concept of mixing functions to build truly personal and unique ships is amazing! But this should be "endgame" content, not faster to learn than 3 of the 4 T2 cruisers.
The idea is good, it's just put to a horrible place.

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
#315 - 2017-06-20 22:44:09 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:



Again: what does "generalist" mean?


Jack of all trades, master of none.

Dior Ambraelle wrote:

Also, why would you make a ship that's more expensive than the T2 ships, and has penalty for losing it if it should be weaker than every T2 and pirate cruiser? If T3Cs were an upgrade on T2 ships that can combine their abilities and would require all T2 cruiser skills then we wouldn't have this mess. You can't blame the ships for being broken if the rule makes no sense.


Kronos is less useful than a normal mega despite being more expensive and longer to train into.

T3C are supposed to be the highly adaptable generalists, T2 are the specialists, T1 are the base model, faction are the posh base model and pirate are the high quality supermodel.

Having the generalists out preforming the specialists makes no sense.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#316 - 2017-06-20 22:44:56 UTC
JC Mieyli wrote:

how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake


Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship?
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#317 - 2017-06-20 23:33:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
JC Mieyli wrote:

how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake


Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship?

i dont think its unfair to set some meta boudaries somewhere
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#318 - 2017-06-21 00:57:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
T3C are supposed to be the highly adaptable generalists, T2 are the specialists, T1 are the base model, faction are the posh base model and pirate are the high quality supermodel.

This whole lineup is based on a rule that T3Cs always failed to follow, a rule which was made by the devs years ago.
Yet during all of these years people were only complaining about T3Cs being stronger than the T2 cruisers. Am I really the first one who questions: what if the rule itself is the problem?
Wouldn't it make more sense if you learn all T2 specialized cruisers to level 4 or 5, and only then would you unlock the T3Cs which can combine their roles? Tech 3 ships seem to play by their own rules anyways, why shouldn't we turn the strategic cruisers the endgame subcapital? Increase the skill requirements to need all of the skills of all roles the subsystems could provide, and at that point you have a legit reason to be better than the T2 versions.

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.

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#319 - 2017-06-21 06:27:40 UTC
Because power creep is bad.

A ship to end all ships just means everyone flies one ship. No meaningful choices is boring for a game and means noobs are less relevant until they can fly such ships.

Doesn't matter how expensive you make it, or how much sp you need to unlock it it will eventually be flown en mass by richer older players who will curb stomp everyone all day except other groups using the same doctrine. Look at titans, which had to be given space aids to stop them stomping all over anyone who doesn't have fleets of them.

Isk+sp does not and, never will, justify making something over powered.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#320 - 2017-06-21 06:28:37 UTC
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:
So are we all agreed?

Delete t3s entirely from game yet? Yes? Great!

Good job everyone, last one out of thread turn off lights.

If only we could.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs