These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Soleil Fournier
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#41 - 2017-05-31 05:31:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Soleil Fournier
One of the major problems with T3 is being stuck with a subsystem/role/bonus you don't want just to hit a particular slot layout.

So lets say I *want* the Overheat Subsystem but *Need* the extra low slot in order to make my fit work, I'm forced to choose one of the other subsystems. Or that I need the extra mid slot of the overheat subsystem but want the Cap/PWG bonus....I'm stuck getting a bonus I don't want just to make the slot layout work. This isn't a great experience.

So the suggestion is to remove slot bonuses from subsystems and make slots standardized on T3 hulls (per racial of course). This puts the focus on building your T3 ship based on the role/bonus you want without having to be forced into a subsystem you don't want just for the slot layout.

This should also make balancing easier because you already know the slot layout and can adjust bonuses/hardpoints as necessary.

(Or alternatively, remove slot bonuses from all subsystems and add a 4th subsystem that has a slot bonus specifically)
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#42 - 2017-05-31 06:04:41 UTC
Kenbones Valkyrie wrote:
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.

High slot is needed for cloak+probes. Cloaky hunters. Frankly it will be glass cannons (and not very big cannons) with current bonuses.



1. "Increase cost slightly" cost of what? Hull? Subsystems? It's kinda opposite to versatility of the whole idea.
2. How much cargo space on those?
3. Subsystems bay maybe?
4. How harsh nullification debuffs will be? (I'm happy with not removing option to covop+nullification)

I'm playing with Tengu combinations and it took to me to a strange places I never been before, started to check my fleet support skills for fleet bursts...

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

Kenbones Valkyrie
Seventeenth Battalion
Honorable Third Party
#43 - 2017-05-31 06:22:09 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Kenbones Valkyrie wrote:
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.

High slot is needed for cloak+probes. Cloaky hunters. Frankly it will be glass cannons (and not very big cannons) with current bonuses.



1. "Increase cost slightly" cost of what? Hull? Subsystems? It's kinda opposite to versatility of the whole idea.
2. How much cargo space on those?
3. Subsystems bay maybe?
4. How harsh nullification debuffs will be? (I'm happy with not removing option to covop+nullification)

I'm playing with Tengu combinations and it took to me to a strange places I never been before, started to check my fleet support skills for fleet bursts...



I was suggesting removing 1 launcher/turret and high slot. For example, the Proteus would have 7 high slots/5 turrets on its primary weapons sub instead of 8 high slots/6 turrets. I know this isn't a perfect solution as the Proteus also has a drone sub and dropping a turret would be less of a nerf.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#44 - 2017-05-31 06:31:40 UTC
Kenbones Valkyrie wrote:
I was suggesting removing 1 launcher/turret and high slot. For example, the Proteus would have 7 high slots/5 turrets on its primary weapons sub instead of 8 high slots/6 turrets. I know this isn't a perfect solution as the Proteus also has a drone sub and dropping a turret would be less of a nerf.

It would be direct nerf to tank and dps on cloaky hunters T3C.

I got another one: should covert+nullfied setups carry cyno? Maybe nullifing should remove ability to carry one?

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

Kenbones Valkyrie
Seventeenth Battalion
Honorable Third Party
#45 - 2017-05-31 07:08:08 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:


I got another one: should covert+nullfied setups carry cyno? Maybe nullifing should remove ability to carry one?


From what has been posted this is already getting a nerf. The base agility is being reduced causing an even longer align time for the nullification subsystem. Honestly if you are going to be caught by cloaky nullified T3Cs then you would also likely be caught by sub 2 second warp suicide cyno interceptors and I don't hear anyone calling for them to be removed.
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
#46 - 2017-05-31 07:10:20 UTC
There is a lot of bonuses in those offensive subs..A lot...

Considering Loki i don't like extra launcher in gun sub and extra guns on missile ones with 37+3 Mbit/sec bandwidth... in all honesty i am sick of it but there is that extra launcher in there over current setup with all possible bonuses added to them so who knows ....two neuts...shiet ton of drone bay space < -_- > i hope.

You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

Because >>I is too hard

Mr Floydy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2017-05-31 07:38:16 UTC
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

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.


I doubt that 95% has any basis in fact. Regardless, I would be surprised if T3s made any notable contribution to lag and tidi than many other things - certain drones/missiles/bubbles will all be far bigger contributers.

Not to mention the idea of completely removing the unique and interesting art side of things would completely remove the gameplay of trying to work out what fits you could be fighting against from the look of the hulls. If you've never done that I'm going to assume you've never really hunted solo T3s / done much small scale pvp with them.
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2017-05-31 09:14:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Novor Drethan
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
1. "Increase cost slightly" cost of what? Hull? Subsystems? It's kinda opposite to versatility of the whole idea.

T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are.

If you buy a HIC, you're stuck with a HIC. You can't change it into a HAC or logi. But you can change the role of your T3C, so it should have a hefty premium in terms of cost.

Think about it: it's cheaper to buy a specialized tool than it is to buy an all-in-one tool.

Quote:
Honestly if you are going to be caught by cloaky nullified T3Cs then you would also likely be caught by sub 2 second warp suicide cyno interceptors and I don't hear anyone calling for them to be removed.

Just a tad unrelated, but people were calling for the removal of interdiction nullification from the combat interceptors because of how overwhelming they can be in groups.

T3Cs with covert cloaks, interdiction nullification, and offensive subsystems are going to be far worse in comparison, and completely uncatchable even with the slower align time if they keep some warp core stabs in their cargo and swap out when traveling.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#49 - 2017-05-31 09:59:30 UTC
Novor Drethan wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
1. "Increase cost slightly" cost of what? Hull? Subsystems? It's kinda opposite to versatility of the whole idea.

T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are.

If you buy a HIC, you're stuck with a HIC. You can't change it into a HAC or logi. But you can change the role of your T3C, so it should have a hefty premium in terms of cost.

Think about it: it's cheaper to buy a specialized tool than it is to buy an all-in-one tool.

Quote:
Honestly if you are going to be caught by cloaky nullified T3Cs then you would also likely be caught by sub 2 second warp suicide cyno interceptors and I don't hear anyone calling for them to be removed.

Just a tad unrelated, but people were calling for the removal of interdiction nullification from the combat interceptors because of how overwhelming they can be in groups.

T3Cs with covert cloaks, interdiction nullification, and offensive subsystems are going to be far worse in comparison, and completely uncatchable even with the slower align time if they keep some warp core stabs in their cargo and swap out when traveling.


We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap.
As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf.

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

Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2017-05-31 10:14:33 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap.
As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf.

SP loss only matters if you lose the ship. Do everything right and the hull is relatively cheap for what it's capable of doing. The upfront cost should be higher.

SP loss also unfairly hurts newer players. Older players who typically have most of the skills they want trained up don't have to sacrifice anything to train their subsystem skills back up, but newer players have to choose between the subsystems or other important skills they haven't trained yet.

The decreased lock range isn't that big of a deal if you're being bridged in by a Blops to gank a target, which is what the cloaked + nullified + offensive T3Cs are going to be doing. The decreased agility and increased signature radius don't matter if you fit warp core stabs in your lows when traveling -- again, something that isn't an issue if you're being bridged by Blops anyway.

I was going to suggest an increased delay in lock time after decloaking, but even that doesn't matter if the target is already pointed by a cloaked T3C that's fit for heavy tackle.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#51 - 2017-05-31 11:30:43 UTC
Novor Drethan wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap.
As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf.

SP loss only matters if you lose the ship. Do everything right and the hull is relatively cheap for what it's capable of doing. The upfront cost should be higher.

SP loss also unfairly hurts newer players. Older players who typically have most of the skills they want trained up don't have to sacrifice anything to train their subsystem skills back up, but newer players have to choose between the subsystems or other important skills they haven't trained yet.

The decreased lock range isn't that big of a deal if you're being bridged in by a Blops to gank a target, which is what the cloaked + nullified + offensive T3Cs are going to be doing. The decreased agility and increased signature radius don't matter if you fit warp core stabs in your lows when traveling -- again, something that isn't an issue if you're being bridged by Blops anyway.

I was going to suggest an increased delay in lock time after decloaking, but even that doesn't matter if the target is already pointed by a cloaked T3C that's fit for heavy tackle.


We don't really now for sure how capable will be the hulls after rebalance so already annoucing cost increase is a bit premature. They are super op now they will be nerfed and more expensive after? SP loss is not connected to player in-game age. We have injectors now. It doesn't matter if player can or not afford it.

Every rebalance done to them is from pvp fleet perspective not explorers, blops etc. So having a nullifing will also bring nerfs if used. So:
Novor Drethan wrote:
Just a tad unrelated, but people were calling for the removal of interdiction nullification from the combat interceptors because of how overwhelming they can be in groups.

T3Cs with covert cloaks, interdiction nullification, and offensive subsystems are going to be far worse in comparison, and completely uncatchable even with the slower align time if they keep some warp core stabs in their cargo and swap out when traveling.

May happen for solo, but nodoby will use stabs in fleet combat or any pvp.

We need more data, sigularity release would be good to play with fits.

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

Predator BOA
Lost Boys.
#52 - 2017-05-31 11:34:17 UTC
Hi All

I think so far there going to be to many high slot , so far with the cloak and DPS subsystem you can get 8 high slots, with only 6 guns that you can use.

The Defensive Subsystem should give you the same number as high slot as guns that you can use on it.
So if you want to use Clock , Prob and Dps hunter you either have 6 guns and a cloak or 5 guns cloak and probs, not all three.

Plus the Mids slot need a look at I reckon.
Take the extra high slot and put it towards a mid.

Look at the legion as an example, it gets max 3 mids for a DPS boat or low as 2 , less than a proteus.

That's what I see in the graph so far of cause.

Mr Floydy
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2017-05-31 11:56:49 UTC
Predator BOA wrote:
Hi All

I think so far there going to be to many high slot , so far with the cloak and DPS subsystem you can get 8 high slots, with only 6 guns that you can use.

The Defensive Subsystem should give you the same number as high slot as guns that you can use on it.
So if you want to use Clock , Prob and Dps hunter you either have 6 guns and a cloak or 5 guns cloak and probs, not all three.

Plus the Mids slot need a look at I reckon.
Take the extra high slot and put it towards a mid.

Look at the legion as an example, it gets max 3 mids for a DPS boat or low as 2 , less than a proteus.

That's what I see in the graph so far of cause.



I don't know about the slot layout being a problem yet. Taking your Legion example, a pure buffer tanked dps Legion gets 2 mids if you go with the base speed / agility subsystem. Whilst that's definitely lacking it's unlikely to be used as a solo roaming fit, so let's assume it's a prop mod and a cap booster to keep the lasers firing. You've then got 8 low slots for tank and dps mods along with 7 highslots to put your guns and some utility into.
Want an extra mid for some tackle, switch to the other prop mod at the expense of a low slot - you've still got 7.

As Fozzie said on the chat, ignore the utliity highs for the like for like comparisons to the current T3s right now. This current pass has an extra slot vs the current build, all 4 T3s now have a utility high slot in any dps fit.

I'm pretty happy with a cloaky / probe fit having 8 high slots too. Full set of guns, cloak and a probe launcher. It's a change in direction from current but I think it's too early to say it's bad.

The balance of the new T3s is all going to come down to the base stats; hitpoints, signature, base speed and fitting. Right now the main thing to look at is whether these subsystem combos are interesting. I'm really liking the various overheat related changes. I think it's definitely a good way to limit some strong bonuses too - in theory you could have them able to out perform (or just match) other ship classes, but only be able to do it in a burst - thus balancing them out somewhat.
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#54 - 2017-05-31 12:52:16 UTC
Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete.

And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing.
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#55 - 2017-05-31 14:09:05 UTC
I have always seen the variable slot layouts as a balancing nightmare. Giving the ships a default slot layout and then having the subsystems modify that would be a much easier way to balance the ships.

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

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#56 - 2017-05-31 14:27:15 UTC
Mr Floydy wrote:
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:

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.


I doubt that 95% has any basis in fact. Regardless, I would be surprised if T3s made any notable contribution to lag and tidi than many other things - certain drones/missiles/bubbles will all be far bigger contributers.

Not to mention the idea of completely removing the unique and interesting art side of things would completely remove the gameplay of trying to work out what fits you could be fighting against from the look of the hulls. If you've never done that I'm going to assume you've never really hunted solo T3s / done much small scale pvp with them.


I feel you, if it doesnt improve performance of the game then it doesnt matter, but I thought I read somewhere that the subsystems add to the lag problems. Could be wrong.
Aleverette
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#57 - 2017-05-31 14:36:35 UTC
Well, since you are planning to rebalance ships that are naturally against EVE's logic.

Nothing we can say but to see right?
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#58 - 2017-05-31 14:38:25 UTC
Novor Drethan wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap.
As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf.

SP loss only matters if you lose the ship. Do everything right and the hull is relatively cheap for what it's capable of doing. The upfront cost should be higher.

SP loss also unfairly hurts newer players. Older players who typically have most of the skills they want trained up don't have to sacrifice anything to train their subsystem skills back up, but newer players have to choose between the subsystems or other important skills they haven't trained yet.

The decreased lock range isn't that big of a deal if you're being bridged in by a Blops to gank a target, which is what the cloaked + nullified + offensive T3Cs are going to be doing. The decreased agility and increased signature radius don't matter if you fit warp core stabs in your lows when traveling -- again, something that isn't an issue if you're being bridged by Blops anyway.

I was going to suggest an increased delay in lock time after decloaking, but even that doesn't matter if the target is already pointed by a cloaked T3C that's fit for heavy tackle.


Good points. Personally I dont see why there is SP loss, just make it a higher up front cost. The SP thing is a legacy thing they should get rid of.


Aleverette
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#59 - 2017-05-31 14:48:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Aleverette
According to the draft: a 8-7-2 Loki , a 8-8-1 Tengu and a 7-2-8 proteus? Dude sign me in!
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2017-05-31 15:29:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Novor Drethan
Noxisia Arkana wrote:
Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete.

And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing.

It shouldn't be CCP's job to make sure the players have ships that do everything they want. It's the players who need to adapt.

I would love if my Marauder had better resists or the ability to use a MJD when in Bastion, but CCP has rejected both those things. Why? Well, for balance.

I don't believe a ship that can fit a covert cloak, interdiction nullification, and 6 bonused turrets/launchers is balanced. There's a reason Recon Ships don't have spectacular DPS and tank. There's a reason they don't have interdiction nullification. There's a reason Black Ops Battleships can't fit covert cloaks.

All of that reasoning goes out the window with T3Cs though. It's as though every other ship in the game is balanced by one standard while T3Cs are balanced by another, and it certainly doesn't help that so many players support that.

1. T3Cs are Cruisers. They are not Battlecruisers. They are not Battleships.
2. Being T3 does not justify them being fundamentally broken in terms of balance. T3Ds were just rebalanced by CCP, and they seem to be in a good place. They are very much Destroyer hulls. They don't compete all that much with Cruisers, and they certainly don't compete with Battlecruisers. T3Cs should be very much the same, relative to their hull size.
3. Cost is not a proper balancing tool when used as an excuse to try and justify an unbalanced ship. We know this. Marauders are 10x as much as T1 Battleships, but CCP refuses to give them T2 resists -- they cost as much as Dreadnaughts, but don't perform anywhere near the same level. The same should be true of T3Cs. You shouldn't be paying all that extra isk for a brokenly powerful ship. You should be paying that isk for a ship that's versatile and can adapt to many different roles -- unlike T2 ships, which are limited to specific roles.

This really all seems like common sense, but T3Cs have been so strong for so long that people simply aren't willing to admit that they need a much more extensive nerf than we're currently seeing. I think that this should be the goal.