These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2017-05-31 15:46:39 UTC
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.

Both Astero and Stratios are able to fulfill their roles in exploration without interdiction nullification. There's no reason T3Cs need it for a similar role.

If we're talking about using T3Cs to drop covert cynos on targets for Blops bridges, I'm still not a fan. I can see why people would want to keep that functionality for T3Cs, but there's simply too little risk involved for the potential reward.

Covert Ops and Recon Ships are all expected to move through space without interdiction nullification. Surely there must be balance reasons for that, so I don't see why T3Cs should be exempt.

Perhaps one of the developers could chime in and explain why no other ships in the game (save for Interceptors) were given interdiction nullification. I would love to have it on my Panther or Deimos, honestly.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#62 - 2017-05-31 15:54:23 UTC
Novor Drethan wrote:
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.

Both Astero and Stratios are able to fulfill their roles in exploration without interdiction nullification. There's no reason T3Cs need it for a similar role.

If we're talking about using T3Cs to drop covert cynos on targets for Blops bridges, I'm still not a fan. I can see why people would want to keep that functionality for T3Cs, but there's simply too little risk involved for the potential reward.

Covert Ops and Recon Ships are all expected to move through space without interdiction nullification. Surely there must be balance reasons for that, so I don't see why T3Cs should be exempt.

Perhaps one of the developers could chime in and explain why no other ships in the game (save for Interceptors) were given interdiction nullification. I would love to have it on my Panther or Deimos, honestly.

So, remove nullification completely? Why saves for ceptors? They are fast enough to run from inside bubbles anyway.

"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
#63 - 2017-05-31 16:02:19 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
So, remove nullification completely? Why saves for ceptors? They are fast enough to run from inside bubbles anyway.

I don't think it needs to be removed, just heavily penalized -- for both Interceptors and T3Cs. There should be a loss of offensive capabilities and the ability to fit or light cynos.

The latter of which will make people riot, of course. I imagine people are already looking for me in-game or writing up death threats for simply putting it out there as a suggestion.

We already have a ship that can fit covert cloaks and has bonuses for cynosural fields: Force Recons. They aren't being used for that because T3Cs do a much better job and, again, they don't have interdiction nullification.

So I'm curious as to why CCP thought those T2 hulls didn't deserve interdiction nullification while T3Cs do.
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
#64 - 2017-05-31 16:25:32 UTC
My hope would be that nullified t3s aren't impossible to catch as they are now; align times / sig radius increases - these will affect how these ships work. But they can still be effective in grabbing tackle through a bubble in null or doing exploration.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#65 - 2017-05-31 16:27:04 UTC
Novor Drethan wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
So, remove nullification completely? Why saves for ceptors? They are fast enough to run from inside bubbles anyway.

I don't think it needs to be removed, just heavily penalized -- for both Interceptors and T3Cs. There should be a loss of offensive capabilities and the ability to fit or light cynos.

The latter of which will make people riot, of course. I imagine people are already looking for me in-game or writing up death threats for simply putting it out there as a suggestion.

We already have a ship that can fit covert cloaks and has bonuses for cynosural fields: Force Recons. They aren't being used for that because T3Cs do a much better job and, again, they don't have interdiction nullification.

So I'm curious as to why CCP thought those T2 hulls didn't deserve interdiction nullification while T3Cs do.

Because everything need counter-measure, and no cloak is not a counter-measure for interdiction bubbles.

"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
#66 - 2017-05-31 16:50:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Novor Drethan
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Because everything need counter-measure, and no cloak is not a counter-measure for interdiction bubbles.

Why should it take more to counter T3Cs when they're providing the role of Force Recons than it takes to counter Force Recons? Or the Stratios, a hull that's primarily for exploration?

If T3Cs can do a better job at exploration than an SoE ship, for what reason would you use that SoE ship?

And no, cost is not a acceptable answer. You're paying more for T3Cs because they can change their roles. They can be a Stratios one day, a Command Ship the next, and a HAC the day after. If you wanted to do that without a T3C, you'd need to buy 3 different hulls, so T3Cs will always be the better options -- regardless of cost. That's why it can't be used for balance, and T3Cs instead need to be kept away from the roles that existing ships provide.

If T3Cs can fit a covert cloak and bonuses to EWAR, they will always be better options than Recon Ships because of 1. interdiction nullification and 2. the fact that they can swap roles at a later date. It's cheaper to buy a Proteus and a few extra subsystems than it is to buy a Deimos, a Lachesis, and an Astarte.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#67 - 2017-05-31 17:10:37 UTC
Novor Drethan wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Because everything need counter-measure, and no cloak is not a counter-measure for interdiction bubbles.

Why should it take more to counter T3Cs when they're providing the role of Force Recons than it takes to counter Force Recons? Or the Stratios, a hull that's primarily for exploration?

If T3Cs can do a better job at exploration than an SoE ship, for what reason would you use that SoE ship?

And no, cost is not a acceptable answer. You're paying more for T3Cs because they can change their roles. They can be a Stratios one day, a Command Ship the next, and a HAC the day after. If you wanted to do that without a T3C, you'd need to buy 3 different hulls, so T3Cs will always be the better options -- regardless of cost. That's why it can't be used for balance, and T3Cs instead need to be kept away from the roles that existing ships provide.

If T3Cs can fit a covert cloak and bonuses to EWAR, they will always be better options than Recon Ships because of 1. interdiction nullification and 2. the fact that they can swap roles at a later date. It's cheaper to buy a Proteus and a few extra subsystems than it is to buy a Deimos, a Lachesis, and an Astarte.

Your own words:
Novor Drethan wrote:
T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are.

+ SP loss. You already answer your own question.
T3C will be worse in any given role than T2 counterparts.
BTW do you fly T3C, because you sound like theorist.


"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
#68 - 2017-05-31 17:28:38 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Your own words:
Novor Drethan wrote:
T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are.

+ SP loss. You already answer your own question.
T3C will be worse in any given role than T2 counterparts.
BTW do you fly T3C, because you sound like theorist.

They won't be worse than their counterparts because they'll have abilities their counterparts don't have.

T2 ships are balanced for a specific role. T3Cs can provide that role without sacrificing the same things that T2 ships have to.

T3Cs should be expensive because they are multiple hulls in one. They can swap roles whenever necessary, unlike T2 ships. That is why they should cost a premium. It does not mean that they should be on par with T2 ships in the roles that T2 ships provide.

Recon Ships provide greater range for EWAR than T3Cs, but they lack the same level of tank and a dead Recon Ship is a useless Recon Ship. The same goes for logi, especially now that they'll be providing boosts. The same goes for Force Recons in particular.

What is the point in having a role bonus for cynosural fields and covert cloaks if T3Cs are used instead for that role because of interdiction nullification? Instead of being used for the role bonus that Force Recon provide, they're used for EWAR -- but again, not nearly as effective as T3C with how squishy they are in comparison.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#69 - 2017-05-31 18:12:54 UTC
Novor Drethan wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Your own words:
Novor Drethan wrote:
T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are.

+ SP loss. You already answer your own question.
T3C will be worse in any given role than T2 counterparts.
BTW do you fly T3C, because you sound like theorist.

They won't be worse than their counterparts because they'll have abilities their counterparts don't have.

T2 ships are balanced for a specific role. T3Cs can provide that role without sacrificing the same things that T2 ships have to.

T3Cs should be expensive because they are multiple hulls in one. They can swap roles whenever necessary, unlike T2 ships. That is why they should cost a premium. It does not mean that they should be on par with T2 ships in the roles that T2 ships provide.

Recon Ships provide greater range for EWAR than T3Cs, but they lack the same level of tank and a dead Recon Ship is a useless Recon Ship. The same goes for logi, especially now that they'll be providing boosts. The same goes for Force Recons in particular.

What is the point in having a role bonus for cynosural fields and covert cloaks if T3Cs are used instead for that role because of interdiction nullification? Instead of being used for the role bonus that Force Recon provide, they're used for EWAR -- but again, not nearly as effective as T3C with how squishy they are in comparison.

I have no idea what you are writing about. You want a premium price for a hull that is worse than T2 but have some abilities that their counterparts won't have (interdiction nullifiing I presume). Did you ever bother to read proposed changes to T3C, because I don't think so. Tank resists will be nerfed below T2, nullifing sub will have serious drawbacks, cloak will have less than average tank. The only thing that may be usefull is interdiction nullifing subsystem to travel.
Nobody will fly a hull that will cost fitting+spare subsystems = rook+basilisk+nighthawk+cerberus. That will be 1,5 bil ISK and it's not guarantee that you'll use all that stuff. It won't be worth it. The fact you think T3 are so versatible or will be so shows you have very to none experience to them.

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

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
#70 - 2017-05-31 18:31:02 UTC
IMO, I would like to see all offensive subs lose a hard point and a fitting slot, they just seems to have too much as proposed.

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

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#71 - 2017-05-31 19:12:11 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
[quote=Novor Drethan][quote=Jeremiah Saken]Your own words:

I have no idea what you are writing about. You want a premium price for a hull that is worse than T2 but have some abilities that their counterparts won't have (interdiction nullifiing I presume). Did you ever bother to read proposed changes to T3C, because I don't think so. Tank resists will be nerfed below T2, nullifing sub will have serious drawbacks, cloak will have less than average tank. The only thing that may be usefull is interdiction nullifing subsystem to travel.
Nobody will fly a hull that will cost fitting+spare subsystems = rook+basilisk+nighthawk+cerberus. That will be 1,5 bil ISK and it's not guarantee that you'll use all that stuff. It won't be worth it. The fact you think T3 are so versatible or will be so shows you have very to none experience to them.


I think you guys are getting off topic, or a little extreme. Nobody is suggesting T3C's should be 1.5B a pop. What most people are saying or implying is they should be a bit more expensive.

Currently they cost approximately: 115mm for the hull and 140mm for the subsystems, so lets call it 250mm.

My read is most people think we should drop the SP loss and increase the upfront cost, i would assume to the tune of 375mm-500mm for the hull plus subsystems.

To me that kinda makes sense. Especially since the rigs can be removed and swapped. (they only are destroyed on death) and especially since we are going from 5 to 4 subsystems, if prices stay the same we are talking a decrease in the cost by 1 subsystem.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#72 - 2017-05-31 20:16:20 UTC
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
[quote=Novor Drethan][quote=Jeremiah Saken]Your own words:

I have no idea what you are writing about. You want a premium price for a hull that is worse than T2 but have some abilities that their counterparts won't have (interdiction nullifiing I presume). Did you ever bother to read proposed changes to T3C, because I don't think so. Tank resists will be nerfed below T2, nullifing sub will have serious drawbacks, cloak will have less than average tank. The only thing that may be usefull is interdiction nullifing subsystem to travel.
Nobody will fly a hull that will cost fitting+spare subsystems = rook+basilisk+nighthawk+cerberus. That will be 1,5 bil ISK and it's not guarantee that you'll use all that stuff. It won't be worth it. The fact you think T3 are so versatible or will be so shows you have very to none experience to them.


I think you guys are getting off topic, or a little extreme. Nobody is suggesting T3C's should be 1.5B a pop. What most people are saying or implying is they should be a bit more expensive.

Currently they cost approximately: 115mm for the hull and 140mm for the subsystems, so lets call it 250mm.

My read is most people think we should drop the SP loss and increase the upfront cost, i would assume to the tune of 375mm-500mm for the hull plus subsystems.

To me that kinda makes sense. Especially since the rigs can be removed and swapped. (they only are destroyed on death) and especially since we are going from 5 to 4 subsystems, if prices stay the same we are talking a decrease in the cost by 1 subsystem.

I don't know where they'll land but my tengu is already 1,2 bil a pop (fits+one subsystem for a change+ SP loss and it's not bling fit). Fozzie suggested they should be more expensive and removing SP loss will not occur. So w will have a hull that is more expensive than marauder.

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

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#73 - 2017-05-31 20:28:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
all the bonuses just seem too strong on the WIP... although its harder too know without the base stats etc..

I would like too know CCP Fozzies views on the cost increase thats mentioned and why?

Also are you trying too achieve the jack of all trades at a navy level or is that no longer the goal? .. and in that case what is the outcome you're trying too achieve here? and where will these fit in compared too T1/T2?

I'm not really seeing any significant nerfs here... only buffs really

also strongly feel that the versatility aspect isn't going too happen when you have all the stats/slots in the subs instead of baked into the hull and still keeping rigs and you're talking about a price increase aswell ...

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#74 - 2017-05-31 20:55:43 UTC
General thoughts:

1. I like the move to replace the old engineering and electronics subsystems with the core subsystems. It seems like all of the old bonuses have been kept, just in a more manageable format.

2. I also like the move to combine the covert and probing subsystems into a single subsystem.

3. One beef that I have always had with T3s is their rigs. They're already the most customizable ships in the game, so why do they get three rig slots and 400 calibration? T2 ships only get two slots and Pirate ships get 350 calibration. I really feel that T3s should have less rig capability than T2/Pirate ships, not more, especially if they gain the ability to swap rigs.

4. I like the increased focus on overheat-related bonuses. Should make for some really interesting gameplay.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Cartheron Crust
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#75 - 2017-05-31 22:32:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Cartheron Crust
Reading quite a bit of these slack chats. Interesting stuff being bounced about. Cheers for this transparent access. Smile

Just one thing. I am pretty sure 8 slots for high, mid or low is going to be overpowered on any of the T3C's. Especially the mids and lows. Though I am saying this without seeing full stats obviously so if they get "rebalanced" enough it will be ok.

There are already very few ships with 8 slots in a given rack and they tend to be BS's or just the high slots. I think this is for a particular reason. 8 slots is very powerful.

[EDIT] - One more thing actually. Faction sub systems? Pirate ones? Just a thought. ;p
Mr Rive
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#76 - 2017-06-01 00:24:42 UTC
I've been looking at the t3c thing for a while now, and considering what possible changes you might make. I thought there was a reasonable chance that you would buff remote rep power from t3's.

Honestly, I think you're going too far currently with the amount of bonuses you're giving them.

Think about it, every fleet in the game right now is forced to use either t2 logi, or triage, in every fleet. Theyre the weak link. Both either rely on sig tanking, or their massive local tank to stay alive, and require the entire fleet structure to be built around them.

Currently you're proposing ships which have almost 300% more EHP than even the most tanky t2 logi, they're also going to rep more, and have more than enough range to make them viable in any scenario a t2 logi would work.

My suggestion? Give them a solid optimal range, but cut their falloff. Something like 30km range on remote armor with 12k falloff, and 20km range with 30k falloff on remote shield.

This will make them viable in some scenarios, but t2 logi is still going to be viable for mobile fleets.

I would also consider the cap stability of t3 logi before you sink your teeth into them so heavily. Currently there is no ship in the game that can reliably cap transfer at mid range in a fleet which outright requires over 200k ehp.

My suggestion would be to ensure that either you make them viably cap stable by themselves, or change the bonuses so legions and tengus get a bonus to transfers.

This would make even more sense if you were to reduce the range, as it would not make transfers too powerful. You could even force the transfers to be short range, so that logis have to stick together, but still have enough range on the remote shield and armor reps for fleet cohesion.

Bare in mind, if you make t3 logis the go to for every kind of fleet doctrine, that is going to MASSIVELY effect how the meta currently stands. There is a very fine line to be tread here, and I think right now you might be blowing way over that line.

All that being said, we have needed new logi for a while. Theyre the one thing which currently holds fleet combat back. Skill means very little in a fleet battle where everything just gets vollied. Overall this is a step in the right direction.
Jimy F
Strategic Isks Investments Corporation
#77 - 2017-06-01 02:07:55 UTC

Hi

I wish notice couple things, and mentions things i wish to see with t3c rework

One is Loki offensive subsystem with missiles, i wish to see version with pure missile damage, making it hybrid missile, turret, drone damge subsystem is almost the same what it is now, i wish mention that this type subsystem\weapon system is almoust not use at all, u can go to killboard and chceck kills how often this is use, and how this work now,
Loki with missile subsystem now; there is alomoust no one who use it
https://zkillboard.com/ship/29990/losses/
and Typhon Navy with turret and missiles, in all cases ppl use additional hi slots for utility slots not for duble weapon system
https://zkillboard.com/ship/32311/losses/
in this two cases u can see, if you check 100 or more killmails that this subsystem now and combination of this weapon system is not use at all, and sometimes when someone use it, he prabobly not use it any more, so it's waste, and making it this in that way, kill this subsystem, like it is now.
Also if you put 5 launcher and 2 turrest, when u wish to get max dmg build for something, you lose 1 hi slot that means that all others can fit 1 utility more, neut or proble launcher, cloak or something, becouse they need only 6 turret/missile point, 6 hi slots, not 7, also you are not able to get damage amplifiers to all this weapon system on one ship, not mention that u can't fit also mods to accurity of all this weaopn systems, so damage lose is very big, and you lose a lot more dmg becuse u have explo velo bonus not dmg bonus, so your total damage is much lover, becouse u can't rise total damage cap, i think this will not work with this subsystem.
Other thing i wish to see, wich i think is fine now, is old legion offensive missile subsystem, with focused missile weapon system, i think is no need to change it, adding drones is not very nice idea, becouse it will be secend scarlige, what is point making secend exacly the same ship?
one more thing in this two things is that, drones are not cool choice i think, drones are not very good for pve, dies very often, so its big waste of DMG, take a lot of time to drop them and pull back when they are attacked, it is big dps lose to, pull full agro at exploration combat plex-s, wich is very big pain, so it may do, that we don't see this ships at ded combats sites at all or in wormholes sites.
i play eve over 11 years, i know this from expirence, and i think this are better options then this from spreadsheet.

Gungrifin Revoria
Rising Thunder
#78 - 2017-06-01 02:54:45 UTC
Looking at the Loki, I think the slot layouts for the Web and Sensor Strength subsystems need to be switched.

Currently the only practical way you fly with webs on the loki is armor. With these changes the max lows on the loki with the web subsystem would be 5; 1 down from the 6 that I believe is the defacto standard. In addition to this the proposed changes open up a 7mid shield webbing loki for the first time in forever; 8mid If you dont fit guns and fit the logi/burst sybsystem.

Due to t2 Minmatar resists being extremly lenient on shield and practicaly requiring a kin + exp hardener no-matter what for armor, I believe the proposed webbing loki slot layout favors shield too much. I would love to see the armor web loki perserved post patch.

If you switch the 3mid 1low of the web subsystem to 2mid 2low it evens out the max slot spread between lows and mids. In addition to this, if you dont switch but want max mid slots anyway for heavy shield fits you are required to use the webbing subsystem that you may or may not get use out of.

By swaping the slot layouts you can preserve the heavy shield layout while not locking it into the web subsystem in addition to opening up webbing lokis to both shield and armor fleets instead of heavily favoring only shield.
TracyJordan
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2017-06-01 03:46:55 UTC
Would like to see a 25 m3/mbit drone bay/bandwidth on the Amarr laser sub. Only makes sense, Amarr being drone focused as well. Minmatar is not and they get drones on all subs. And while were at it can we kill the cap bonus and get something useful instaed?
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#80 - 2017-06-01 04:05:51 UTC
The correct answer to the "nullification isn't fair" objection is to add more nullification. Every covert ops ship should be immune to bubbles as well, and I wouldn't argue if other classes (HACs maybe?) got it as well. Getting kills in EVE should be more about successful hunting or mass fleet battles and less about setting up dozens of bubbles on a gate and insta-popping anything that jumps in.