These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#21 - 2017-05-30 18:56:42 UTC
Urlos Rinah wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cypherous wrote:
The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc

I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration


Yup preserving exploration gameplay is definitely a priority for CCP as well.


Why did you transfered scaning bonuses to deffence slot? some exploration sites do a lot of damage, with this i can say "Farewel forever" to a sleeper sites, i do not care about offence at all at that, please move exploration bonuses to other slot, offence with cloak as it was for all i care. EXPLORERS NEED DEFENCE!!!

cloak sub gets 7.5% rep/level bonus
Eustise
Perkone
Caldari State
#22 - 2017-05-30 19:01:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Eustise
JC Mieyli wrote:
[quote=Urlos Rinah]
cloak sub gets 7.5% rep/level bonus


While i'm mostly happy, the last remaining core issue with explo T3Cs in the current iteration, is the buffer, not necessarily the rep. Most things in explo sites, explosion/NPCs in Ghosts and the Superior Archive as well as a mishap in the Turret room, all deal huge amounts of damage in a very quick timeframe (5 seconds in the Turret, instant in the Ghost explosion plus scrammed/damaged by NPCs and how long you can last in the superior archives), and you don't really have time to rep through it.
Urlos Rinah
A.S.K
Hiigaran Protectorate
#23 - 2017-05-30 19:09:28 UTC
JC Mieyli wrote:
Urlos Rinah wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Cypherous wrote:
The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc

I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration


Yup preserving exploration gameplay is definitely a priority for CCP as well.


Why did you transfered scaning bonuses to deffence slot? some exploration sites do a lot of damage, with this i can say "Farewel forever" to a sleeper sites, i do not care about offence at all at that, please move exploration bonuses to other slot, offence with cloak as it was for all i care. EXPLORERS NEED DEFENCE!!!

cloak sub gets 7.5% rep/level bonus


with lowering def stats it is more than 15% defence penalty compared to situation at a moment, and at a moment i use drugs to resist all damage sleeper sites deliver. Can it keep 500 dps omnitank? think not.
Nikola Starwhisper
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2017-05-30 19:14:37 UTC
What current idea for % of debuffing?
I`m about increasing sig, mass, and reducing speed/agility.
Difference may NOT be larger then 10%.
T3 is dynamical ship, if you make this parameters like a BSH - people change t3 for pirate/t2 BSH
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#25 - 2017-05-30 19:41:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jeremiah Saken
Those are subsystems bonuses. What are the base hull stats? We need to know what values we are adding by subs.

Local rep strenght on covert subsystem is per level? Make covert subsytem split bonuses between active/passive tank subsystem - both but half the value for example: 5% rep and 2,5% raw HP.

Edit: I would rather see jackdaw missile bonuses rather than kinetic lock on Tengu.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Urlos Rinah
A.S.K
Hiigaran Protectorate
#26 - 2017-05-30 19:51:18 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Those are subsystems bonuses. What are the base hull stats? We need to know what values we are adding by subs.

Local rep strenght on covert subsystem is per level? Make covert subsytem split bonuses between active/passive tank subsystem - both but half the value for example: 5% rep and 2,5% raw HP.

Edit: I would rather see jackdaw missile bonuses rather than kinetic lock on Tengu.


I absolutely object splitting bonuses, make those for covert pvp pilots in other sub!
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#27 - 2017-05-30 19:51:28 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Those are subsystems bonuses. What are the base hull stats? We need to know what values we are adding by subs.

Local rep strenght on covert subsystem is per level? Make covert subsytem split bonuses between active/passive tank subsystem - both but half the value for example: 5% rep and 2,5% raw HP.

Edit: I would rather see jackdaw missile bonuses rather than kinetic lock on Tengu.


I'd rather see the covops defensive bonuses split by ship than have it be split 50/50 for every ship. It's a guaranteed way to end up with a terrible final tank. If you have to change it, make 2 active and 2 passive instead.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Alyla By
#28 - 2017-05-30 20:12:49 UTC
Also, on this CPU / PG topic, while keeping it on the subsystem as a role bonus, it may also be possible to put it on the Hull skill (Caldar Strategic Cruiser & cie)

Just adding ideas to the mix
Aly Ankn
Short Bus Window Licker
#29 - 2017-05-30 20:28:32 UTC
Don't see y base speed needs a Nerf. If 100MN speed is a concern then drop the ab bonus some to compensate. T3c go about as fast as a bc without implants.
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2017-05-30 20:29:45 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Mieyli
nvm
Eustise
Perkone
Caldari State
#31 - 2017-05-30 20:35:17 UTC
The Loki may just end up with mediocre base stats in both shields and armor, so people may just choose one of the specialized shield/armor versions anyway.
Aernir Ridley
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#32 - 2017-05-30 21:24:14 UTC
JC Mieyli wrote:
hm on closer inspection this is my tc3 summary

well loki is looking way above the rest of the crowd due to dual tank options
therefore having better slot options and also having great damage subs

the others all suck
slot layouts too restrictive
no real choice of subs due to slot restrictions
crap damage subs for legion and tengu
crap tank for proteus

just my 2 cents on current stage of development
feel free to correct me if im wrong




I don't see any combination that shows the slot layouts you've listed there except on the Proteus (unless you're using cloaky nullified but you should never use that for combat). The Tengu for example in a standard config is 6 mid/3 low for solo (although without the cap regen bonus it will be difficult to use), and 6 mid/4 low for fleet. The damage bonuses are also all the same that they are now, minus Rapid Lights.

The only issue I'm seeing is the non-tank slot numbers (ie. Medium for Armor and Low for Shield). With the loss of one of the subsystems, the number of these slots has dropped for all ships to a point where they're no longer effectively usable. Adding them back in the new Core subsystem or another could help though. Also although the numbers aren't released yet, the Loki should probably have nerfed armor and shield compared to the rest of the T3Cs to make up for choice of tank; Or just give it **** all capacitor like all other Minmatar ships XD

"For most people, the sky's the limit... For those who love aviation, the sky, is home."

-Cheers! :D

Mr Floydy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2017-05-30 21:26:35 UTC
A question triggered by this:

From the Focus Group chat logs... wrote:

[21:12] frsd: Is there anything thats stopping 4 different subsystems for offensive?
[21:12] frsd: it doesn't need to be all the same
[21:12] ccp_fozzie: yes, we can't support that on our end
[21:13] ccp_fozzie: an art guy would come over to my desk and knock me out with one of those expensive digital drawing tablets


Currently we've got 4 subsystem choices for each type, can you expand on why there's a limitation for only 3 now?
Are the ships getting a complete remodel from scratch, or are you just binning off certain subsystems and now only have the art budget to maintain 3 of each of the 4 subsystems?

I'm really hoping we're not going to lose out on some of the more distinct and pretty subsystem combos!

I'd love to comment more on the balance side of things, but don't think there is enough of a full picture for it right now. Some of the ideas and changes to the subsystems sound promising though.
Capqu
Half Empty
#34 - 2017-05-30 21:42:56 UTC
damage seems a bit high in all covops configurations
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2017-05-30 21:44:01 UTC  |  Edited by: JC Mieyli
Aernir Ridley wrote:
I don't see any combination that shows the slot layouts you've listed there except on the Proteus (unless you're using cloaky nullified but you should never use that for combat). The Tengu for example in a standard config is 6 mid/3 low for solo (although without the cap regen bonus it will be difficult to use), and 6 mid/4 low for fleet. The damage bonuses are also all the same that they are now, minus Rapid Lights.

yeah youre right
i forgot the slots from the prop subs
panic over
for now
i'll take another look tomorrow its getting late
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2017-05-30 21:52:34 UTC
I am following the focus group with some interest.

It seems to be going well, a good discussion.

@Fozzie Being as we aren't able to post there, On the issue of damage lock, may I suggest that giving the Tengu a bonus to thermal as well as kinetic ala gurustas, might resolve that slight imbalance that seems to be there between the proposed missile T3s?
Eustise
Perkone
Caldari State
#37 - 2017-05-30 22:16:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Eustise
Capqu wrote:
damage seems a bit high in all covops configurations


You get a full bonused offensive subsystem, and if you don't take the nullified you don't even get the range penalty. It does seem a bit strong but without the defensive you will be a glass cannon anyway. We're all just waiting on basestats to really see where we are.
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#38 - 2017-05-30 23:54:24 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
A question triggered by this:

From the Focus Group chat logs... wrote:

[21:12] frsd: Is there anything thats stopping 4 different subsystems for offensive?
[21:12] frsd: it doesn't need to be all the same
[21:12] ccp_fozzie: yes, we can't support that on our end
[21:13] ccp_fozzie: an art guy would come over to my desk and knock me out with one of those expensive digital drawing tablets


Currently we've got 4 subsystem choices for each type, can you expand on why there's a limitation for only 3 now?
Are the ships getting a complete remodel from scratch, or are you just binning off certain subsystems and now only have the art budget to maintain 3 of each of the 4 subsystems?

I'm really hoping we're not going to lose out on some of the more distinct and pretty subsystem combos!

I'd love to comment more on the balance side of things, but don't think there is enough of a full picture for it right now. Some of the ideas and changes to the subsystems sound promising though.


Personally, IF and only IF it improves performance I would say just use one fixed art model for each T3C and dont bother having the model change for every system configuration.

95% of the player base doesnt zoom in on a t3 to admire the different system combos but 100% of the player base notices lag and tidi.


Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2017-05-31 01:40:14 UTC
Eustise wrote:
Capqu wrote:
damage seems a bit high in all covops configurations


You get a full bonused offensive subsystem, and if you don't take the nullified you don't even get the range penalty. It does seem a bit strong but without the defensive you will be a glass cannon anyway. We're all just waiting on basestats to really see where we are.

It would boast a similar tank and DPS to Black Ops ships, which can't use Covert Cloaks and don't have Interdiction Nullification.

We were told Black Ops can't use Covert Cloaks because they'd be overpowered, so why can T3Cs use them if they have similar stats in the end, in addition to Interdiction Nullification?
Kenbones Valkyrie
Seventeenth Battalion
Honorable Third Party
#40 - 2017-05-31 03:59:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenbones Valkyrie
Novor Drethan wrote:
Eustise wrote:
Capqu wrote:
damage seems a bit high in all covops configurations


You get a full bonused offensive subsystem, and if you don't take the nullified you don't even get the range penalty. It does seem a bit strong but without the defensive you will be a glass cannon anyway. We're all just waiting on basestats to really see where we are.

It would boast a similar tank and DPS to Black Ops ships, which can't use Covert Cloaks and don't have Interdiction Nullification.

We were told Black Ops can't use Covert Cloaks because they'd be overpowered, so why can T3Cs use them if they have similar stats in the end, in addition to Interdiction Nullification?


From what numbers I can fudge together, some of the DPS numbers are awfully close to a Black ops battleship but with the proposed T3D resist profile I suspect the tank will be significantly less than a Black ops. The Loki is still rather anemic DPS wise compared to the rest.

With the covert ops cloaking ability on the defensive subsystem CCP is going to have a difficult time balancing DPS numbers of cloaky T3Cs while trying to not nerf the DPS numbers to the point that its not viable in other uses. Maybe if the cloaking sub removed a turret/launcher and a high slot when equipped the DPS numbers could be brought down to a bit more reasonable numbers.