EVE Search - Sticky:[Rubicon] Sisters of EVE faction ships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Rubicon] Sisters of EVE faction ships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 20 post(s)
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 749	Posted - 2013.10.02 19:59:00 - [1] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Some food for thought regarding the laser bonus. The ship has 2 racial qualities and a pirate faction theme. Amarr qualities Large Drone Bay, Armor Resistance Bonus. Gallente qualities High Drone Bandwidth, Drone Damage Bonus. Sister of Eve theme Exploration Since both races have a line of drone focused ships with damage bonuses it feels like the Gallente side only comes out with one exclusive bonus in the drone bandwidth. Not that it's really a problem, just a thought I had.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 749	Posted - 2013.10.02 20:07:00 - [2] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Stratios Can fit Cover Ops Cloaking devices Amarr Cruiser Bonus: 4% bonus to Armor Resists Gallente Cruiser Bonus: 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 500 Ok, let me first say that I will definitely be flying this ship. Back when I was noobier than I am now, I had wanted a ship like this. But I gotta say, this crap is broken. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite, but w/e. I have been liking what you guys have been doing with the ship rebalancing, but this is terrible. It is power creep in it's most obnoxious and obvious form. This is a cruiser. Which can fit a Cov Ops Cloak (granted it is rough on fitting). But it has a bandwidth higher than any BC. It's dronebay is larger than any other cruiser (T1/T2/T3/faction/pirate). Larger than any other BC. Larger than any other battleship! And it has a drone damage bonus. On top of that, it has what you have admitted is one of the most powerful bonuses in the game - resist bonuses. And a huge cargo bay to fill with cap boosters to keep a tank running. How can you look at this and not see that it is completely overpowered? We don't need more FOTM faction cruisers. I am disappointed with you guys. Fix this! Part of the goal was to create a somewhat self sufficient ship in these designs so large bays were somewhat of a given. I'm not sure how that makes this ship terribly OP in that respect. We already have 3 125mbit cruisers so comparisons to BC bandwidth are irrelevant unless you are suggesting that the Ishtar, NVexor and Gilla are OP as is. They all have drone damage bonuses as well. Granted the combination of a covert cloak on top on the other advantages has not been done before, you've already pointed out that fitting somewhat tapers this advantage.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 749	Posted - 2013.10.02 20:52:00 - [3] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Part of the goal was to create a somewhat self sufficient ship in these designs so large bays were somewhat of a given. I'm not sure how that makes this ship terribly OP in that respect. We already have 3 125mbit cruisers so comparisons to BC bandwidth are irrelevant unless you are suggesting that the Ishtar, NVexor and Gilla are OP as is. They all have drone damage bonuses as well. Granted the combination of a covert cloak on top on the other advantages has not been done before, you've already pointed out that fitting somewhat tapers this advantage. Oh forgot one more thing, this monstrosity has more guns than any other 125mbit cruiser. Seriously mate, if you don't see how all of those singular attributes combine to make a grossly overpowered battleboat, then there isn't really much more I can say. It has the same number of turret points as the Ishtar, and the Gilla has equal missiles to turrets of both. The guns similarly are not damage bonused. again, I conceed the covert cloak may be pushing it, but the bays only increase the length of combat viability at best. The combat capacity still remains the same.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 749	Posted - 2013.10.02 21:48:00 - [4] - Quote La'Krul wrote: CCP Rise wrote: The cruiser missing the Cloak CPU bonus is intentional, the CPU is set with that in mind. If you guys can show me fits that you feel SHOULD work with the cloak and don't because of missing the bonus please let me know, but we were able to run 6/10s with it set like this and it gives it some interesting tradeoffs when deciding what to do with it. I can run 8/10s in an Ishtar without breaking sweat. I hope the Stratios is as capable. These ships look awesome. Personally, I think they should be very expensive or you should lose skillpoints if one pops. Why should one lose SP for these?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 749	Posted - 2013.10.02 21:59:00 - [5] - Quote Nyancat Audeles wrote: Gabriel Locke wrote: Drop the drone bandwidth to 100m3 so people have to think about what they're doing and the DPS isn't completely insane? I can't believe some people can be so shortsighted. 100? Really? The ship has no turret damage bonus, no drone damage bonus, and now you want to take away 20% of it's potential damage? Can't tell if trolling... The ship is rather gimped as it is because of no damage bonuses. I can't believe some people want to nerf it. It's like they've never been to nullsec. It has the standard 10% per level drone damage bonus (cruiser)
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 749	Posted - 2013.10.02 22:01:00 - [6] - Quote La'Krul wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Why should one lose SP for these? Just an idea, as they are so good. Mind you, as they will also be used as an offensive ship maybe it would be a bad idea. I just don't want to see everyone flying them. Maybe it could requires SoE standings to fly or something or the skill requirement should be really extensive. Personally, I'd make the prerequisites all Cruisers to V, Astrometrics V and Cloaking V, for a start. No doubt it's very strong, but I'd prefer it'd be balanced than unfairly penalized. Even after seeing the justification I wonder still if the resist bonus makes it to durable for a cov ops ship.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 751	Posted - 2013.10.03 00:18:00 - [7] - Quote Vincent Ageon wrote: ...Is the ship itself OP? As it stands, its awesome, yes but perhaps not OP. As an exploration ship? Yes. OP as hell. It's intended as an exploration combat ship. It's also unique in that specialization. If it's not OP in that niche wouldn't that mean it has failed in design?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 751	Posted - 2013.10.03 00:33:00 - [8] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: CCP Rise wrote: HERE THEY ARE I think we will have a lot of discussion here, these ships will be great for a lot of different things meaning people will be trying to tug them in a few different directions. That's fine! What we're shooting for is ships that are themed around exploration and therefor make good platforms for a range of activities including probing, hacking, exploration combat sites, anoms, killing anom runners, spying on people, looking super sexy and generally being kind of awesome. We're supporting that model with things like: Covert cloaks Exploration role bonuses Drone and laser weapon systems with large cargo and drone bays so that you don't have to go home often Extremely high ship agility And more! Anyways you guys can toy around with these specs and let me know what we missed or what you think would be better and I'll try to make everyone happy (which is usually easy). Thanks! Astero Role Bonus: 100% reduction in CPU requiement for cloaks Role Bonus: 37.5% increase Scan Prob Strength (maybe this should be a rounder number? right now it follows the t1 bonus) Role Bonus: +5 Virus strength for Relic and Data Analyzers Can fit Cover Ops Cloaking devices Amarr Frigate Bonus: 4% bonus to Armor Resists Gallente Frigate Bonus: 20% bonus to drone hitpoints Slot layout: 2H, 4M, 4L; 2 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 32 PWG, 170 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 540 / 600 / 600 Capacitor (amount) : 430 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 312 / 2.87 / 975000 / 3.88s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 75 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 37km / 620 / 6 Sensor strength: 13 Signature radius: 35 Cargo Capacity: 210 Stratios Role Bonus: 50% reduction in Energy Turret capacitor need Role Bonus: 37.5% increase Scan Prob Strength (maybe this should be a rounder number? right now it follows the t1 bonus) Role Bonus: +5 Virus strength for Relic and Data Analyzers Can fit Cover Ops Cloaking devices Amarr Cruiser Bonus: 4% bonus to Armor Resists Gallente Cruiser Bonus: 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage Slot layout: 5H, 5M, 5L; 4 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 920 PWG, 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1950 / 2400 / 2450 Capacitor (amount) : 1700 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 182 / .47 / 9350000 / 6.09s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 500 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 275 / 7 Sensor strength: 20 Signature radius: 150 Cargo Capacity: 550 PICTURES (Sorry don't have in-client shots yet) Uhh, i'm just kinda wondering... what's that point in the frig, if the cruiser has everything the frig does, and more? Not trying to be rude, but that is kinda like asking why use a tristan when the vexor exists, or any pairing of frigate and cruiser with similar focuses.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 752	Posted - 2013.10.03 00:50:00 - [9] - Quote Vincent Ageon wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Vincent Ageon wrote: ...Is the ship itself OP? As it stands, its awesome, yes but perhaps not OP. As an exploration ship? Yes. OP as hell. It's intended as an exploration combat ship. It's also unique in that specialization. If it's not OP in that niche wouldn't that mean it has failed in design? As a cruiser sized hull that would do this much better than most BC hulls? Sure. Id take the smaller ship any day over something much more bulky and potentially more skill intensive to get the same results. This isnt the next Cynabal, Gila, or Vigilant. As pirate faction ships those should still shine, as they do as awesome ships but long term deployment exploration is something THOSE ships weren't exactly meant for. Covops is already a powerful tool. The concept as it stands is great but in application there is serious doubt thats what the majority of users will be using it for. If the bonuses stand as is, id look of for these as hunters. In lore as well, Sisters of EVE methods have at times been questionable or rumored to be so, bu never out right pirat like. If anything there explorers with strong defensive/evasive capabilities. Little bit of teeth? Sure, when fighting is forced, but the Cruiser hull will be the one forcing fights if its not looked at what players will most likely do with it verses the reason for why the ship is being introduced to begin with. If CCP was looking to give us another combat focused ship, Id want say a serpentis version of the Brutix (since the serp vexor skin was already used as a torni prize). Opinions regarding what we'd like to see added regarding ships isn't really the best feedback here, but that aside, part of what is desired from a combat PvE ship, which is where the cruiser is aimed vs it's frigate counterpart for non-combat sites, is damage output and application. If the ship becomes anemic in DPS or falls significantly below it's counterparts, even the non cloaky ones, it will not find use. Of course this means it will be used in other ways, but honestly that is a non issue to me as this is a combat ship. It will be used for PvP so long as it has any real capability there. And it will if it's any good in its intended role.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 752	Posted - 2013.10.03 01:01:00 - [10] - Quote Vincent Ageon wrote: 200m3 Drone bay 900m3 Cargo 5/5/5 4TH 40% Scan bonus 7.5% Virus Strength 15% Ship Tractor speed (not tractor beam) 25% Hacking/Analyzer module range (stats not mentioned proposed to remain the same) Thoughts? (perhaps dropping drone damage to 5% per level and add laser dmg per level as someone stated above?) This would make it more marketable as a explo anom runner, still give it offensive ability but not to match other ships specialized FOR that role, addresses the drone bay and cargo issue, keeps the High for utility but drops a turret to push for it. Thoughts? "15% Ship Tractor speed (not tractor beam)" > I'm not understanding here "200m3 Drone bay" > Why are we nerfing the intended use (prolonged deployment) but not the cloaky gank fit?

Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 752	Posted - 2013.10.03 01:31:00 - [11] - Quote Vincent Ageon wrote: M1k3y Koontz wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: REduce drone bay to 200 meters and the problem is solved The drone bay is fine as is. Given the role of extended deployment/exploration a large drone bay is necessary. If you can't replace lost drones while deployed deep in nullsec then the ship is useless. That's why the drone bay and cargo are so large, its a necessity of the role. Carry a mobile fitting array and you wont ever need to have a large drone bay unless you were PvPing and didnt know what you were engaging. Too many unknowns there. At first thought we don't know how easy those will be to transport, fuel or otherwise supply. They also will provide what you don't want, which is a beacon for a good spot to lay a trap. Being glued to one spot or a structure is again the antithesis of the design intent.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 752	Posted - 2013.10.03 02:42:00 - [12] - Quote Freako X wrote: Joe Risalo wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: Joe Risalo wrote: CCP Rise wrote: HERE THEY ARE I think we will have a lot of discussion here, these ships will be great for a lot of different things meaning people will be trying to tug them in a few different directions. That's fine! What we're shooting for is ships that are themed around exploration and therefor make good platforms for a range of activities including probing, hacking, exploration combat sites, anoms, killing anom runners, spying on people, looking super sexy and generally being kind of awesome. We're supporting that model with things like: Covert cloaks Exploration role bonuses Drone and laser weapon systems with large cargo and drone bays so that you don't have to go home often Extremely high ship agility And more! Anyways you guys can toy around with these specs and let me know what we missed or what you think would be better and I'll try to make everyone happy (which is usually easy). Thanks! Astero Role Bonus: 100% reduction in CPU requiement for cloaks Role Bonus: 37.5% increase Scan Prob Strength (maybe this should be a rounder number? right now it follows the t1 bonus) Role Bonus: +5 Virus strength for Relic and Data Analyzers Can fit Cover Ops Cloaking devices Amarr Frigate Bonus: 4% bonus to Armor Resists Gallente Frigate Bonus: 20% bonus to drone hitpoints Slot layout: 2H, 4M, 4L; 2 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 32 PWG, 170 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 540 / 600 / 600 Capacitor (amount) : 430 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 312 / 2.87 / 975000 / 3.88s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 75 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 37km / 620 / 6 Sensor strength: 13 Signature radius: 35 Cargo Capacity: 210 Stratios Role Bonus: 50% reduction in Energy Turret capacitor need Role Bonus: 37.5% increase Scan Prob Strength (maybe this should be a rounder number? right now it follows the t1 bonus) Role Bonus: +5 Virus strength for Relic and Data Analyzers Can fit Cover Ops Cloaking devices Amarr Cruiser Bonus: 4% bonus to Armor Resists Gallente Cruiser Bonus: 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage Slot layout: 5H, 5M, 5L; 4 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 920 PWG, 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1950 / 2400 / 2450 Capacitor (amount) : 1700 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 182 / .47 / 9350000 / 6.09s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 500 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 275 / 7 Sensor strength: 20 Signature radius: 150 Cargo Capacity: 550 PICTURES (Sorry don't have in-client shots yet) Uhh, i'm just kinda wondering... what's that point in the frig, if the cruiser has everything the frig does, and more? one will hit market for 50m .. other for 600-700m once they really dig in, I really don't think the cruiser will be that much.. I'm going to agree that there needs to be a difference between the Frigate and Cruiser. Cruiser update to ..... Role Bonus: 37.5% increase Scan Prob Strength Role Bonus: 100% bonus to Logistic Drone repair amount. Role Bonus: 1000% bonus to range of remote armor repair and energy transfer systems. I've mentioned it before, but I think that while less sexy, logistics in a covert fleet would be huge. Not saying that idea is or isn't good, but why would we transform an exploration cruiser into that? Also why would SOE be the ones to develop it?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 752	Posted - 2013.10.03 02:46:00 - [13] - Quote Freako X wrote: ^^^ Fits the SOE humanitarian theme. considering that logi's are typically used as accessories to people blowing each other up, not so much really.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 754	Posted - 2013.10.03 03:06:00 - [14] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Freako X wrote: ^^^ Fits the SOE humanitarian theme. considering that logi's are typically used as accessories to people blowing each other up, not so much really. Edit: Also not understanding the logic behind the 2 being vastly different in purpose to begin with, considering the current pirate lines. As opposed to lasers and combat drones? Logistics is a pacifist profession in comparison to pew pew laser boats. I'm not the one who stated they would create a humanitarian ship, so your looking at the wrong person for that reasoning. The SOE I've worked for has no qualms about telling me to kill NPC's and even gives me shiny exploration goods for it (which are frequently used to find more NPC's or players to kill). For THAT SOE these ships fit quite well.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 754	Posted - 2013.10.03 03:49:00 - [15] - Quote ichi bin wrote: Some changes to the stats a bit that fit more to the covert ops tree inline with the other covert ops ships. Astero Role Bonus: +5000 km to scout drone control range <-Added role bonus Covert Ops Skill Bonus: <-Changes from fixed stats to skill based 20% reduced CPU need for Cloaking Devices per level 10% increase to scan strength of probes per level 10% reduction to survey probe flight time per level +2 Virus strength for Relic and Data analyzers per level Can fit Cover Ops Cloaking devices Amarr Frigate Bonus: 4% bonus to Armor Resists Gallente Frigate Bonus: 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and speed <-Changed drone bonus to hitpoints/speed Slot layout: 2H, 4M, 4L; 2 turrets, 2 launchers <-Added 2 launcher slots Fittings: 32 PWG, 170 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 540 / 600 / 600 Capacitor (amount) : 430 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 312 / 2.87 / 975000 / 3.88s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 75 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 37km / 620 / 6 Sensor strength: 13 Signature radius: 35 Cargo Capacity: 210 Stratios Role Bonus: 50% reduction in Energy Turret or Hybrid Turret capacitor need Covert Ops Skill Bonus: <-Changes from fixed stats to skill based 20% reduced CPU need for Cloaking Devices per level 10% increase to scan strength of probes per level 10% reduction to survey probe flight time per level +2 Virus strength for Relic and Data analyzers per level Can fit Cover Ops Cloaking devices Amarr Cruiser Bonus: 4% bonus to Armor Resists Gallente Cruiser Bonus: 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage Slot layout: 5H, 4M, 6L; 4 turrets, 4 launchers <-Changes from 5H 5M 5L and 4 and 0 Fittings: 920 PWG, 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1950 / 2400 / 2450 Capacitor (amount) : 1700 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 182 / .47 / 9350000 / 6.09s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 500 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 275 / 7 Sensor strength: 20 Signature radius: 150 Cargo Capacity: 550 These are not T2 ships, and so far as I know there are no shared race t2 ships, so this isn't "in line" with anything really. Especially since there are no T2 exploration cruisers and the Stratios doesn't have ewar bonuses and isn't a frigate like the covert ops.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 757	Posted - 2013.10.03 19:45:00 - [16] - Quote Meldorn Vaash wrote: ...Remove: 125m3 of Drone Bay... I'm still not sure why people see the need for this. What is it that you are trying to accomplish keeping the goals of the design in mind?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 758	Posted - 2013.10.03 20:14:00 - [17] - Quote Amakish wrote: Isalean wrote: Really nice ships, but will we get some more highsec SoE agents too? There aren't many of those, especially the security ones, only one for lvl 3 and 4 missions. Otherwise it will take very long for most people to actually get these ships. ever heard of concord LP? At a 60% loss? Not sure many would want to go that route, but yeah, it's doable.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 758	Posted - 2013.10.03 20:20:00 - [18] - Quote Tragedy wrote: I really wish ccp would put more thought into this kind of thing. This game doesnt need this kind of ship. Of course all eceryonr does is scream "new and shiny yay!" **** repercussions right? What are these repercussions you foresee? How are the ships in concept a detriment to the game.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 761	Posted - 2013.10.03 20:48:00 - [19] - Quote Veyer Erastus wrote: Lord Lojak wrote: i rather love the look of the ship its self and its stats from what im seeing but i do think 1 thing is rather out of place. and thats the drone bandwidth of 125. don't get me wrong i like it but a T1 (albeit a faction) fielding 5 heavies? seems a bit over powered to me. Vexor Navy can do the same. As can the Gila
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 762	Posted - 2013.10.03 21:26:00 - [20] - Quote Tragedy wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Tragedy wrote: I really wish ccp would put more thought into this kind of thing. This game doesnt need this kind of ship. Of course all eceryonr does is scream "new and shiny yay!" ** repercussions right? What are these repercussions you foresee? How are the ships in concept a detriment to the game. These make covert ops scanning ships obsolete for one. Right now you have to put some thought into what you want use to go exploring in null, low, or day tripping in whs in. Once these are released its "all exploration should be done in a soe cruiser for max results" For noncombat sites now there isn't much thought. Grab any scan frig and your set. also drone dependent ships in WH's still won't outstrip T3's likely with their lower scan bonuses and less weapon destructibility. Tragedy wrote:** Why would I take another ship over one of these for exploration ever? Its just like when they released ABCs, now they struggle to find roles for things like HACs. These are cool and all, but I just think why do we need them? The whole point of this massive ship re-balancing they're doing is to make unused ships useful. Releasing a ship that makes tons of others pointless right after balancing just seems to me like they're trying to throw the dog a bone to shut it up without thinking about the consequences. I don't think a lack of an absolute need is a good reason to avoid adding ships. Especially since that would at this point practically mandate that no ships could really be added to the game. There aren't really any purposes that something we currently have can't be arranged to serve. To be honest these don't even come across as the best overall things for the actual exploration job. Sites will be scanned faster by full 50% bonused ships witch include T3's and the T2 scan frigates. The T1's will be the cost conscious choice for non-combat sites in highsec, and depending on the details the Cov-ops could well cost less than these to make them attractive for the same sites in lowsec. T3's without covert cloaks will scan sites faster and do them just as well without the drawbacks of drone usage and these lack any option for interdiction nullification. I'm not saying these don't need adjusted or trimmed back, but conceptually I don't see the issue you are making here.

Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 763	Posted - 2013.10.03 22:04:00 - [21] - Quote So how would it be with a 2 hardpoint/4 highslot setup with no damage bonus? Seems it's a slot up from the gila anyways, unless the gila is going to get another in the near future as well.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 763	Posted - 2013.10.03 22:26:00 - [22] - Quote Nyancat Audeles wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: So how would it be with a 2 hardpoint/4 highslot setup with no damage bonus? Seems it's a slot up from the gila anyways, unless the gila is going to get another in the near future as well. Also, Since Cov-ops and resist bonuses are both acknowledged as being rather powerful, should they both be on the same hull? As it's an exploration ship, and not a PvP ship, the resist bonuses are needed for PvE. There might be some good in reducing to 2 hardpoints, but not until CCP adds a laser bonus (eg. optimal). No, the resists bonuses are NOT NEEDED for PvE. A rep bonus would work just fine. In PvE repair capacity > EHP.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 763	Posted - 2013.10.03 22:32:00 - [23] - Quote Nyancat Audeles wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Nyancat Audeles wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: So how would it be with a 2 hardpoint/4 highslot setup with no damage bonus? Seems it's a slot up from the gila anyways, unless the gila is going to get another in the near future as well. Also, Since Cov-ops and resist bonuses are both acknowledged as being rather powerful, should they both be on the same hull? As it's an exploration ship, and not a PvP ship, the resist bonuses are needed for PvE. There might be some good in reducing to 2 hardpoints, but not until CCP adds a laser bonus (eg. optimal). No, the resists bonuses are NOT NEEDED for PvE. A rep bonus would work just fine. In PvE repair capacity > EHP. Yup, but CCP said they didn't want to put the rep bonus on this (I forget why, but they were adamant about it). I would prefer a rep bonus, but I'd take a resist bonus over no tank bonus at all for PvE. No tank bonus would make this useless. They were, but I'd question the reasoning. I agree that it's a bonus that people don't like as much, but where balance requires it, balance should win. That said I'm just throwing things out there to reign this in a bit rather than wreck it. I think the turret reduction may need to happen though. And with the optimal bonus.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 763	Posted - 2013.10.03 22:55:00 - [24] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Tbh, the way I would fix it would be to reduce CPU by about 10-15%. Keep everything else, slot layout, whatever the same. CCP had the right idea about not giving it a cloak CPU bonus, they just didn't go far enough. That way you have to choose between damage mods and utillity mods (e.g. going dual prop scram/web + td with all damage and tank in lows would no longer be an option, you would need fitting mods), or maybe you choose to downsize the guns, etc. Tradeoffs, so we wouldn't get a "wtf solo pwnmobiles" (I forgot which CCP dev said this, but that's the reason there are no covops cloak battleships). to be fair, last update the CPU was still under review. We may see that corrected by the next update. time will tell.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 763	Posted - 2013.10.04 01:19:00 - [25] - Quote Large Collidable Object wrote: Eko Fromtv wrote: 35 pages of baseless and senseless arguing. It is NOT a pvp boat, forget the EFT capital turret fits with 10k dps. It is a combat exploration ship, emphasis on pve not pvp. "but people will use it for pvp" - So let them! Even more tears for you to harvest when they lose a 400mil ship... If anything, it needs a buff to lasers. Any kind, CCP Rise's idea of optimal is excellent. It will just support CCP's idea for "drones and lazors". Motivate us to use the lasers, add a laser bonus. I absolutely agree except for the part where it 'needs a buff to lasers' . CCP Obamas approach obviously aims at giving ships counter-intuitive bonuses. Only ignoring the bonuses will render the ships somewhat viable. Now let's assume I'm a SOE engineer: - I construct a ship with poor grid and CPU, able to sneak up to other ships really closely thanks to a cov ops cloak. - I decide to give it a really useless bonus to the absolutely worst turret class for the desired engagement. - The ship ends up usable for people who learned that ignoring its bonus is the only way to make them remotely viable. ??? - Smoke some more crack and win. Well, to be realistic the design is to use weapons which will last the longest on an extended trip without having to resupply. Mission accomplished. But of course since it has a covert cloak people are going to use it as you stated, but that wasn't the SOE engineers goal. Of course he realizes this, but doesn't give a flip what YOUR intent is and stuck with lasers.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 763	Posted - 2013.10.04 01:24:00 - [26] - Quote Dehval wrote: Nyancat Audeles wrote: This. The Stratios is a NEW, DIFFERENT role. People seem to be blind to that idea. Stop trying to fit a round peg in a square hole and move on. I give up. I'd probably have an easier time teaching a fish to talk than to get you to understand why this ship cannot go live in anything remotely resembling its current state. New roles be damned. CCP should create a new ship role where it exists solely to remote DD through cynos like Titans of old. You'd probably defend that one too because its NEW and DIFFERENT since there is nothing recent to compare it to. Most agree with you that it's somewhat OP, though it appears that we don't all agree to what degree. Even some people citing your posted fits just think it needs a CPU nerf. So I wouldn't say it's quite so obvious that it can't go live in "anything remotely resembling its current state."
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 765	Posted - 2013.10.04 02:03:00 - [27] - Quote Dehval wrote: Nyancat Audeles wrote: And no one in their right mind will fit this for PvE with a 16k EHP tank to get that 900 DPS you mention. EVERYONE here is putting out max gank fits and then assuming that EVERYONE will suddenly fit all of their 400+ million ISK SoE cruisers with a max gank, 900 DPS fit with less EHP than 2 Punishers. The reality will be far from it. The people that try to do that will learn quickly; others will be far more reasonable with their fits. Max gank is somewhere in area of 1100 dps. 800 dps can be easily obtained with 4 unbonused pulse lasers and 2 DDAs, 900 if you use Blasters in Null. Here, I even made a fit last night. It's pretty good. If you want to drop the analyzers you can fit more cap rechargers and throw on a nanobot accelerator to up the tank even more. The ship does not have to try hard at all to get these ridiculous numbers. Noone gives a damn about EHP in PvE. If you care about EHP in PvE you are playing the wrong game. I'll be honest, for the intended role that doesn't seem that excessive. A loss of only about 100DPS at most should theoretically be all you really need.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 767	Posted - 2013.10.04 21:51:00 - [28] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: it does all of the stuff they intended it for or isn't 570 dps good enough to run 6/10's? With the sub par tank and speed on this boat? No. You'd get cooked. It's clearly designed to do it with a full flight of sentry drones. Oh, and I dispute your dps numbers, to boot. You have 2 turrets with a 100% bonus, 4 effective turrets. Not one chance in hell does that push 570, effective or on paper (seeing as you have no tracking, or optimal range bonuses either). Even if you add the laughable flight of medium drones. It doesn't push the kind of range to deliver it, either. Okay then my mistake. I'm no null sec carebear so i don't know anything about running these sites but if this ship needs sentry drones to run there sites, is there any point in equipping it with lasers?[/quote] By that logic the Gila is a missile boat.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 767	Posted - 2013.10.04 22:13:00 - [29] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Eko Fromtv wrote: Yeah and drones are a Gallente weapon even more. resists are not weapons. he ship needs to be identified as half and half and that means lasers and drones. You know this, don't be THAT guy. No one like that guy. Yeah just like how the vigilant gets a bonus to projectile weapons and drones... oh wait. Cause web bonuses are never seen on Minmatar hulls.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 767	Posted - 2013.10.04 22:19:00 - [30] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Rek Seven wrote: Eko Fromtv wrote: Yeah and drones are a Gallente weapon even more. resists are not weapons. he ship needs to be identified as half and half and that means lasers and drones. You know this, don't be THAT guy. No one like that guy. Yeah just like how the vigilant gets a bonus to projectile weapons and drones... oh wait. Cause web bonuses are never seen on Minmatar hulls. He said only weapons count, stupid. He's not terribly familiar with pirate faction ships as a whole then.

Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 768	Posted - 2013.10.05 03:24:00 - [31] - Quote How does 4/5/5, 2 turret hardpoints with a 50% damage role bonus sound alongside the 7.5% + application bonus instead of 10/lvl drone damage Dehval proposed for reigning in the DPS potential a bit. Still leaves just over 500dps for gardes plus up to ~100dps in laser complement.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 771	Posted - 2013.10.08 19:52:00 - [32] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Even then, if they follow the same pirate bpc cost 80,000lp +20mill isk for the cruiser assuming 1k isk per LP the minimum cost would be 100mill. The same rate for the frigate it would be minimum 30mill. 1k isk per LP may be hard to maintain though with a highsec lvl 4 LP source.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 771	Posted - 2013.10.09 01:28:00 - [33] - Quote Tarunik Raqalth'Qui wrote: Chris Winter wrote: What kind of tank are people coming up with on the Stratios? I can't seem to get much more than ~50k EHP on it without going for a ton of bling, and with only 50k EHP this won't be replacing cloaky T3s for solo WH hunting anytime soon. As part of a logi-backed fleet, these things could definitely be brutal, but on their own it seems to me that they wouldn't be able to withstand the DPS of the average site runner before they fall over. Seems to me that it needs to lose a mid and gain a low. What does an armor bonused ship need 5 mids for, anyway? Yes, the Stratios has a weak tank, but that isn't the biggest problem with these ships: they have horrific CPU issues. They need at least 100tf more CPU in order to be remotely comparable to a covops in actual functionality, especially the frigate. As it stands, good luck shoehorning an expanded probe launcher onto one! They seem aimed at the PvE side of exploration, thus a core probe launcher is sufficient.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 772	Posted - 2013.10.09 22:18:00 - [34] - Quote epicurus ataraxia wrote: Please bring all your alts out, why make it any harder for CCP than needed, you obviously feel immune from their actions, bring them all to the party and show off.Let me know how that works out for you? Ah if they ban you you can't can you. Is the concept that more than one person disagrees so far fetched to you?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 772	Posted - 2013.10.09 23:29:00 - [35] - Quote epicurus ataraxia wrote: Oh by the way, not a lot of point using your alts to try and goad me, I have informed CCP, Formally that the sheer amount of trolling with multiple identities, has made it completely pointless to attempt to use the forums for their intended purpose. I will no longer be attempting intelligent discussion as It is impossible to identify real identifies amongst the trolls and alts. Suckering someone along into trying to find solutions and agreement between seemingly irreconcilable differences then bam ha ha you fell for it is trolling,and I may return when CCP clears this garbage out and allows the forums to function. Good bye and thanks for all the crap. The irony here is incredible
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 773	Posted - 2013.10.10 19:24:00 - [36] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Bouh Revetoile wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: If ANY of that is true about drones then why is the Worm not a top tier frigate? They're damn near the same ship, after all, unbonused light drones and everything. Because the Worm have a shield resist bonus you'll lose if you armor tank, don't have any drone bonus but the obsolete drone bay one, and because the Tristan have close to the same performances. And finaly, the Worm don't have any special feature to justify its pirate frigate price. (And it's slow to top it off). Yet it's not really bad, but not good enough for its price. Ok, and that just goes to show that the Astero doesn't even measure up (which is the point I was trying to make in the first place). The Worm has, if anything, a better tanking bonus, while the Tristan has vastly better damage output. (in the whole school of thought of "kill them before they kill me" I'd rate the Tristan as the best out of the 3 frigates in question) And neither of them are considered top tier frigates. If you fit the Astero like a tristan I'd think the damage output between the 2 would be rather similar, though I'm not sure the real DPS difference between 2 damage unbonused small blasters vs 2 unbonused small lasers.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 777	Posted - 2013.10.12 02:38:00 - [37] - Quote MiMozO wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: I'm just gonna leave this here... Don't see much of specialization for T2 CoverOps over T3 though. Neither have been through the rebalance as of yet.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 777	Posted - 2013.10.14 21:25:00 - [38] - Quote Harvey James wrote: i would suggest removing 1 heavy its dps is quite high for a cloaky ship and there are so many drone boats its kind of devaluing gallente lore a little and overshadowing vexor, NVexor, even the prophecy. I think gurista line should become more like vexors 4 heavies missile damage bonus instead of velocity .. gallente should be the dominant drone race and well there is no solid missile pirate line ... 2 birds with 1 stone comes to mind. I'm anxious to see the new direction of the guristas hinted at by other comments, but the cruiser is a pirate vessel, thus overshadowing the Nvexor, and moreso even the vexor, is to be expected in the presented hierarchy. The should tend to the top of the heap and the shared strength of drones in both racial contributors should make it very competitive there specifically.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 779	Posted - 2013.10.15 22:14:00 - [39] - Quote Owen Levanth wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Owen Levanth wrote: Harvey James wrote: mm... yes all drone ships have -1 slot so these should also lose a slot But the cruiser isn't a drone ship, so it should lose (a lot) of it's drone bay instead. The cruiser is a drone ship, 125mbps of bandwidth, 500m3 drone bay, 10% drone damage and HP per level of gallente cruiser. These things make it a drone ship, a 50% reduction (which most amarr players hardly call a bonus) does not make a laser ship. Logically, if you reduce all this, it stops being a drone ship. Also, like the poster right above said, it's an exploration ship. Not a "drone ship". There already enough of those. There are no more drone ships than there are ships focused to any type of weapon, so if there are enough of drone ships there are enough of all of them thus having "enough" is a meaningless criteria. Aside from stating that if they changed it to be something other than a drone ship offensively it wouldn't be a drone ship you have not put forth a compelling reason for actually doing so.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 779	Posted - 2013.10.16 23:02:00 - [40] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Complaining that a pirate ship designed around Lasers & Drones (as officially announced by CCP) is too hard to train into for certain races.... Rubbish. Really, get some better arguments, exploration is not some magic thing that makes it different from any other ship. Nor is this the only ship capable of doing exploration. Every ship out there is harder to train into for someone. I also fail to see how upping laser DPS to make it a 50/50 DPS split pushes it heavily into the Amarr camp The only Amarr thing it currently has going on is the armour resists from cruiser skill. Other than that you will not see Laser set ups on the present build. You will also not see Amarr drones except in very niche applications, you will see Gallente & Minmatar drones. So right now it is heavily on the Gallente side of things with some Minmatar influence for the projectile fits. The closer it gets to the 50/50% area the more marginalized damage mods become, which may not necessarily be bad, but it also penalizes fitting it for actual exploration as now devoting highs to mods that support it's task, such as a probe launcher, or rr to increase drone survivability are more penalized than those simply gank fitting it.

Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 779	Posted - 2013.10.17 00:11:00 - [41] - Quote Eko Fromtv wrote: Yeah I see the eft warrior did not quit despite being proven wrong a thousand times. Give the ship a laser bonus in line with its Amarrian heritage. "but armour!!!" yeah, yeah... check that to the Gallente side and stop whining I seem to be missing the large number of Gallente ships with resist bonuses.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2013.10.17 20:33:00 - [42] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Astero - this is more balanced i feel the -1 mid is for it being a drone boat as even faction droneboats lose 1 slot e.g. NVexor This is a pirate faction boat such as the Gila, which is not a slot down from it's peers if i recall correctly. That said, we don't know what the balance changes will bring to the pirate cruisers.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2013.10.17 23:26:00 - [43] - Quote Harvey James wrote: well this is part of the problem its just promoting power creep like the OP officer/deadspace mods ... i thought CCP were taking a different direction toward role based system across the board .... While true they were trying to avoid power creep, that doesn't mean all levels of an item become different but equal. Infact the often reposted image in this very thread has stated that there is an intentional power difference between certain ship types, including pirate being superior to navy faction. That in itself isn't the power creep they were avoiding anyways. Rather they have referenced the need to nerf mechanics that fell out of place compared to their peers, not because they weren't effectively equal in power at all levels.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2013.10.17 23:57:00 - [44] - Quote Weasel Leblanc wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Astero Role Bonus: 100% reduction in CPU requiement for cloaks Role Bonus: 37.5% increase Scan Prob Strength (maybe this should be a rounder number? right now it follows the t1 bonus) Role Bonus: +5 Virus strength for Relic and Data Analyzers Can fit Cover Ops Cloaking devices Amarr Frigate Bonus: 4% bonus to Armor Resists Gallente Frigate Bonus: 20% bonus to drone hitpoints Slot layout: 2H, 4M, 4L; 2 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 32 PWG, 170 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 540 / 600 / 600 Capacitor (amount) : 430 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 312 / 2.87 / 975000 / 3.88s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 75 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 37km / 620 / 6 Sensor strength: 13 Signature radius: 35 Cargo Capacity: 210 Stratios Role Bonus: 50% reduction in Energy Turret capacitor need Role Bonus: 37.5% increase Scan Prob Strength (maybe this should be a rounder number? right now it follows the t1 bonus) Role Bonus: +5 Virus strength for Relic and Data Analyzers Can fit Cover Ops Cloaking devices Amarr Cruiser Bonus: 4% bonus to Armor Resists Gallente Cruiser Bonus: 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage Slot layout: 5H, 5M, 5L; 4 turrets, 0 launchers Fittings: 920 PWG, 400 CPU Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1950 / 2400 / 2450 Capacitor (amount) : 1700 Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 182 / .47 / 9350000 / 6.09s Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 500 Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 275 / 7 Sensor strength: 20 Signature radius: 150 Cargo Capacity: 550 PICTURES (Sorry don't have in-client shots yet) These are wonderful and sexy machines which I will gleefully pilot around... but since we don't know what racial resist baseline their armor uses, maybe you could add that to the first post? Little tidbits like that are useful for obsessive must-know-alls like myself and EFT warriors, if nothing else. This post has been edited for clarification. And, yes, even T1 ships have minor variations in armor resists. Gallente resist profile.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2013.10.19 01:37:00 - [45] - Quote Musca Sklir wrote: i can't help it, but the design of these new ships doesn't fit eve art. especially if compared to existing soe ships like the apotheosis or gnosis their style seems to be completly out of whack. The apotheosis and Gnosis aren't exactly in tune with any of the races in a strong sense, especially the Min or Caldari. I'll grant you the ship doesn't seem like anything particularly Gallente or Amarr, much less a combination of the 2, but saying that they don't fit the game because of 2 Jove/SOTC ships which themselves don't fit strongly with other racial design philosophies (and rightly so) doesn't seem like sound reasoning.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2013.10.19 01:43:00 - [46] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: I'm going to take the liberty of double-posting in order to say something completely unrelated to my previous post, as I've seen so many people do on these forums. I think that really, there's no just cause for saying anything is overpowered or underpowered or adjacentpowered when all we have to go on is theorycraft, EFT-warrioring and hypothetical scenarios. In other cases we've been fighting over rebalances of existing ships, for which we have hard data and flight experience. These ships don't even exist yet and so the exact combination of stats may work out somewhat differently than they look. The TL;DR of all this is that we really don't know anything until they appear for 100 ISK each on SiSi. I don't fancy reading 90 pages of posts but am curious as to whether anyone else has noticed, that without T2 Overclocking Rig and every +5 CPU implant the Stratios has no where near enough CPU to use in the suggested roles and fit anything resembling a tank or weapons (aside from drones). All 5's no implants or rigs, 500cpu All 5's, Zainou Gypsy Electronics EE 605 + T2 Medium Processor Overclocking, 575.4cpu Covert ops cloak 100cpu Sisters expanded 210cpu Now try to fit the rest of the ship (without gimping it to hell) _-_-_ Even the frigate is going to have fitting issues as in, you need to fit CPU upgrades (lots of them) to be able to fit it for pretty much anything. All 5's 212.5 cpu?? sisters launcher uses 210cpu, Expanded T2 launcher 242cpu. I was actually looking forward to the cruiser, hoping it may fill the role the gnosis was proposed for but as with it the lack of cpu rules it out of any serious exploration. If CCP is serious about this cruiser being able to be used for exploration, Drop the 50% turret cap bonus for, 50% CPU reduction for probe launchers. You still have major trade offs in fitting but can at least fit more than a cloak and probe launcher It is designed around exploration content which is why it doesn't need an expanded probe launcher. A core will do, which is only 10tf.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2013.10.19 02:56:00 - [47] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: It is designed around exploration content which is why it doesn't need an expanded probe launcher. A core will do, which is only 10tf. Ahhh ok, I get it.. The ships for pve only, funny thats not what the description says but maybe that is what it's meant for. I mean why would anyone want to use a ship with bonuses to scanning for anything other than PVE. Quote: What we're shooting for is ships that are themed around exploration and therefor make good platforms for a range of activities including probing, hacking, exploration combat sites, anoms,"""" killing anom runners, spying on people,"""" looking super sexy and generally being kind of awesome. They might just make it for running relic and data sites but thats about it. You do realize that core probes, which can be used with core probe launchers, are used to find WH's and combat sites as well correct? Additionally, people can easily find targets running anoms with the ship without even needing to use probes or probe down sites that are occupied to find targets as well. Also, if you want the cruiser can still accommodate the combat probe launcher, just compromise with the rest of the fit. Or are you saying that not having it fit with massive CPU to spare will somehow make you incapable?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2013.10.19 03:46:00 - [48] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: It is designed around exploration content which is why it doesn't need an expanded probe launcher. A core will do, which is only 10tf. Ahhh ok, I get it.. The ships for pve only, funny thats not what the description says but maybe that is what it's meant for. I mean why would anyone want to use a ship with bonuses to scanning for anything other than PVE. Quote: What we're shooting for is ships that are themed around exploration and therefor make good platforms for a range of activities including probing, hacking, exploration combat sites, anoms,"""" killing anom runners, spying on people,"""" looking super sexy and generally being kind of awesome. They might just make it for running relic and data sites but thats about it. You do realize that core probes, which can be used with core probe launchers, are used to find WH's and combat sites as well correct? Additionally, people can easily find targets running anoms with the ship without even needing to use probes or probe down sites that are occupied to find targets as well. Also, if you want the cruiser can still accommodate the combat probe launcher, just compromise with the rest of the fit. Aren't WH's and combat sites PVE?? And yes you can find people in anoms without combat probes and get close to them but then you'd use a recon or heavy dictor that has bonuses to that role. Compromise?? A ship that has bonuses to scanning should be able to be used for ALL scanning not simply pve. Right now nothing but T3's in the cruiser line are able to be used for combat scanning, why not make this a truely unique ship and make it versatile without having to gimp the fit to the point of having empty slots. Damn, drop 3 of the highslots and give it another 100 cpu, 3 unbonused lasers isn't going to add that much dps but the extra CPU would open up a lot more fitting options and still have Drone dps. The bonus does apply for both probe launchers. Combat probing is still bonused, you may have to drop a DDA or downgrade from EAMN's to ANP's or other sacrifices but it can be done and for the added utility of bonused combat probing is something you'll have to decide is worth it or not. Also this ship is pretty unique in it's combination of potential damage output with a covert cloak before even considering the scan probe bonuses. Your suggestion doesn't really help PvE or PvP capabilities of the ship as you've eliminated any utility potential or supplemental DPS for either application. Ironically, if that is the path you want to go you can just leave 3 highs unfitted while not penalizing the rest of the users of the ship.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2013.10.19 03:49:00 - [49] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: It is designed around exploration content which is why it doesn't need an expanded probe launcher. A core will do, which is only 10tf. Ahhh ok, I get it.. The ships for pve only, funny thats not what the description says but maybe that is what it's meant for. I mean why would anyone want to use a ship with bonuses to scanning for anything other than PVE. Quote: What we're shooting for is ships that are themed around exploration and therefor make good platforms for a range of activities including probing, hacking, exploration combat sites, anoms,"""" killing anom runners, spying on people,"""" looking super sexy and generally being kind of awesome. They might just make it for running relic and data sites but thats about it. You do realize that core probes, which can be used with core probe launchers, are used to find WH's and combat sites as well correct? Additionally, people can easily find targets running anoms with the ship without even needing to use probes or probe down sites that are occupied to find targets as well. Also, if you want the cruiser can still accommodate the combat probe launcher, just compromise with the rest of the fit. Or are you saying that not having it fit with massive CPU to spare will somehow make you incapable? Over 50% of the cpu is not acceptable for leaving the ship able to function. A substantial cpu discount for.the expanded launcher is certainly reasonable. Even if it still leaves a cost that matters. 75-90%. I'd seriously begin to question, given all the other capabilities present if combat scanning with relative ease in fitting is really wise to add to the list. A much smaller discount is probably acceptable, but at what point does it really cease to be as prohibitive as you think it is? And at that point are we still facing the issue of adding yet another point of contention regarding it being OP?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 781	Posted - 2013.10.19 06:08:00 - [50] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: So we just have another ship pigeon holed to PVE and a single PVE role at that. Quote: looking super sexy and generally being kind of awesome. Kind of awesome, no.. Barely useful for anything other than relic and data sites. Or cloaky hunting, plex/anom runner hunting, WH fighting, black ops hot dropping, DED's and probably most other things you might expect a cruiser to reasonably do. You keep coming back to the same BS as if it were true just for lack of the ability to easily fit an expanded probe launcher. Oddly, by that criteria the game has very few PvP ships.

Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 783	Posted - 2013.10.19 14:12:00 - [51] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Personally I would rather give up the 100 to 160 dps from the unbonused guns for the ability to fit and use an expanded launcher, giving the ship a role no other cruiser (bar T3's) can fill. I think nearly 600dps and 50k EHP with the ability to probe out targets would be a unique role for this ship. Is a shame it didn't appear on the test sever with the patch today Then do so. Your suggestion can easily be accomplished on your own part by choosing not to fill the highslots. So again, why should everyone else be FORCED into your fit just so you can feel better about it since nothing is preventing you from it? Also how did we go from 89 pages of the "it's too good for PvP" argument to this?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 783	Posted - 2013.10.19 16:46:00 - [52] - Quote Sgt Ocker wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Sgt Ocker wrote: Personally I would rather give up the 100 to 160 dps from the unbonused guns for the ability to fit and use an expanded launcher, giving the ship a role no other cruiser (bar T3's) can fill. I think nearly 600dps and 50k EHP with the ability to probe out targets would be a unique role for this ship. Is a shame it didn't appear on the test sever with the patch today Then do so. Your suggestion can easily be accomplished on your own part by choosing not to fill the highslots. So again, why should everyone else be FORCED into your fit just so you can feel better about it since nothing is preventing you from it? Also how did we go from 89 pages of the "it's too good for PvP" argument to this? Actually simply leaving the high slots empty does not accomplish my goal. The ships does not have enough CPU to fit an expanded probe + cloak + any sort of tank. Had you read the post you would see, I'm not forcing anyone to fit it only the way I would prefer. You would have what every ship in eve has, "options". But it is much easier to read 1 or 2 lines and say screw you that's wrong, than it is to read a whole thread. As a pvp ship the gun dps is going to be of little value to you (except maybe to shoot any drones the guy your fighting may launch). As an exploration ship, your not going to get that gun dps because 1 slot is taken up by probe launcher, so your left with less dps from guns with your 3 unbonused lasers. As an anom runner well, I'd like to see the fit the OP was running 6/10's with.. Can be pretty sure it didn't have a cloak or a probe launcher or maybe it did, on the internal servers you don't have to worry about neuts so can take as long as you like to finish. In the end it's all good, I'll use my LP to get a couple and simply sell them.. I don't see you being active as early as I in this thread so I'm not sure where the idea of me only reading 2 lines and nothing else in the thread came from. That aside the idea you proposed was to drop 3 highslots. If leaving those same 3 highs empty doesn't accomplish your goal why did you suggest it? If it does why for it on everyone? Also even if not using the slots for guns (which several posters in the thread I supposedly haven't run ARE posting fits with guns by the way, though usually not lasers) why take away any utility options as well? Or did you step back from the -3 high slot idea in favor of something else? On a related note, if armor tanking DS ANP's can still help provide a substantial buffer while not touching your CPU.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 783	Posted - 2013.10.19 16:53:00 - [53] - Quote Harvey James wrote: ConranAntoni wrote: Nothing like a good repost for the hilarious spurious, feaces encrusted arguments from the clueless posters screaming OP and power creep. I think what that picture tells you is Pirate is geared more towards specialisation than navy ships are rather than you're assumption of being plain improvement over navy. .... its a big difference to note and i hope Rise also notes the difference.. That interpretation ignores the vertical arrow labelled improvement. Considering the same image was referenced for the general theme of navy being thematically a direct upgrade from T1 I would think the view that pirate > navy is supported by that image.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 783	Posted - 2013.10.19 22:47:00 - [54] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Harvey James wrote: ConranAntoni wrote: Nothing like a good repost for the hilarious spurious, feaces encrusted arguments from the clueless posters screaming OP and power creep. I think what that picture tells you is Pirate is geared more towards specialisation than navy ships are rather than you're assumption of being plain improvement over navy. .... its a big difference to note and i hope Rise also notes the difference.. That interpretation ignores the vertical arrow labelled improvement. Considering the same image was referenced for the general theme of navy being thematically a direct upgrade from T1 I would think the view that pirate > navy is supported by that image. well unless they shrink the pair to put them next to each other than it is the only place they can put it but they don't have to put it off to the right at all.. plus the 1 higher meta means its bound to be above navy on the picture but doesn't that mean they need to be plain better than navy .. That rationale suggests that CCP is incapable of producing a graphic that says what they want. It also ignores earlier versions which had pirate with no horizontal offset but directly above navy. Overall they are intended to be better. Though not always directly comparable. I'm more inclined to believe them not spacially incompetent and that the image intends what it says. I can't find the quote but I recall it even being directly stated that pirate was better but different.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 783	Posted - 2013.10.19 22:54:00 - [55] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Xequecal wrote: Drones_Active=Ogre II,5 That's still 700 DPS and a respectable 45k EHP, it fits with Genolution CA-1 and CA-2 & now your entire DPS is based on ogres. And you have no speed. Meaning that during that 8 seconds anything small with a MWD burns out of your web range, then laughs at your inability to hurt them. While anything large enough for you to catch during your 8 seconds locking time can handle 5 ogres. Still. Dropping Drone DPS, raising gun DPS solves all this issue. Because then simply the sacrifice of fitting a high slot utility instead of a gun makes for a significant DPS drop. Rather than all your DPS being PG & CPU free. That only applies to probe fits which means the cloak+full gank variant comes out intact while screwing explorers.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 783	Posted - 2013.10.19 23:33:00 - [56] - Quote What do you have against the noble platypus?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 784	Posted - 2013.10.22 01:36:00 - [57] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Elisk Skyforge wrote: Dont know why I should do that. Also drones are a separate topic, reducing their damage bonus to 2-5% per level might be a good idea to balance them. You should know very well by now that if the ship has turrets and launchers that every single high will be used for weapons. Dunno, cloak seems a strong selling point and along side 4 turrets or launchers that's a full rack.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 786	Posted - 2013.10.24 19:40:00 - [58] - Quote What does it take DPS wise to run a 6/10?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 786	Posted - 2013.10.24 20:36:00 - [59] - Quote I wish I had EHQ here to make this easier. So unless my math is off, which is likely considering it was all done by hand: 4x Grades w/ 2 DDA II's + 3x Heavy beams w/Gleam = 603 paper DPS Ogre II's with lvl V Galente drone spec can raise that to 650 284 DPS kin/therm tank with the following: Centum A-Type Medium Armor Repairer Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Medium Nanobot Accelerator I Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump II Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump II I tend to fly cheap fit BS's in highsec PvE, so I have no idea what to really expect as far as actual performance from a cruiser size hull, but that's what I came up with off the top of my head. Note, this is before accounting for fitting and is low/null exploration targetted, thus cloak and probes are assumed.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 786	Posted - 2013.10.24 22:01:00 - [60] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Vaju Enki wrote: Good change CCP, not keep strong and ignore the themeparkers, they always want overpowered ships, they love powercreep. It was stated the ships could do 6/10 complexes, now they barley break the tank of most of the overseers and will take in close to almost 4 minutes to chew through armor and then it still has structure to take out. But using the ship how it was described only makes us themeparkers huh? A whole 4 minutes? Oh the humanity! Think of the isk/hr, oh won't someone please think of the isk/hr!? If you want the benefits that a covops cloak provides, there has to be a tradeoff. That's called balance. If you don't care about the cloak, use an ishtar, it will get better isk/hr. Considering you probably want to minimize your time exposed, 4 min for 1 NPC can be pretty abysmal depending on the other circumstances surrounding it. Isk/hour is a nice accusation to throw around, but lets not be obtuse are realize that yes, if there are comparable tools which do the job significantly faster, this one need not exist as it won't perform well as intended, and as such won't be used for that job, and will still perform close to too well where not intended. If we get to the point that it's better to be in an Ishtar for completion times allowing you to get in and get the job done, the covert ops cloak doesn't mean jack for explorers as they'd just have to deal with being vulnerable longer and as such rick getting nothing for being interrupted more often.

Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 787	Posted - 2013.10.24 23:07:00 - [61] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: Huh... So anything less than 125mb is worthless for a droneboat? So the Vexor and Myrm are bad? ummm... 'kay. These changes are great and bring the Stratios somewhat into line (though personally I think it's still a bit much). And curious as to why people think that the purpose of the ship is to run the hardest of 6/10s solo. Did the Devs state that was their intended purpose? Or did they just say that they took the ship into a 6/10 and completed it? (hint - it was the second one) Worthless? No. Performing as advertised (doing 6/10's was advertized, though not elaborated)? Questionably, and for many from the sound of it, not acceptably considering alternatives. So really, it needs to be asked again, why have this ship if it's only going to be a good cloaky gank boat and mediocre explorer when you were trying to create a good explorer? Also this ship lacks the tank of a myrm and the vexor isn't intended for any of what this ship is purposed for or will likely be used for. That said I think the ship is far from dead, but won't be doing it's advertised peak outside of blinged fits.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 787	Posted - 2013.10.25 00:01:00 - [62] - Quote PotatoOverdose wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: If we get to the point that it's better to be in an Ishtar for completion times... If all you care about is completion times, then covops ships should be your last choice. If that stops being the case, then there's a clear balance problem. Completion times are and should be a concern. And if you practiced less selective quoting you'd see why. You would also show that it's not the only concern. I'll admit though, I misstated. My meaning wasn't that the ishtar should be slower in clearing, it should be faster, but if it's too much faster than the stratos fails in it's purpose as serious explorers will continue using ishtars since their advantages will outweigh the gains of the stratos. Debate will of course ensue passionately as to where that point is, as it already has, but acting like completion time is meaningless isn't doing this any favors.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 788	Posted - 2013.10.25 19:48:00 - [63] - Quote Querns wrote: I believe the thread, lacking any other feedback from CCP, is probably finished. In closing, we can all agree that, despite taking a slight nerf, the Stratios is still a fearsome ship with amazing damage and damage application in a covert droppable package. While it might not be as useful as a gimmick DED complex ship as it was when it did more damage, it's easy to understand that, despite what anyone might have said, the relevancy for one ship at one gimmick DED complex is completely irrelevant, not a design goal, and should be dismissed as the offhand comment that it was instead of being written on stone slabs and carried down a mountain. So then your contention is that the stated design intent was an offhand comment and thus the ships other aspects toward that focus are thus unnecessary, including the high drone bay to bandwidth ratio, large cargo hold and scan and hacking bonuses? Because if running 4-6/10 DED's and other scanned combat sites wasn't the focus, the cruiser has a lot more it could stand to lose to be "balanced" and could actually stand being removed since we probably don't need a DPS focused cloaky hot dropper.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 788	Posted - 2013.10.25 20:14:00 - [64] - Quote Querns wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Querns wrote: I believe the thread, lacking any other feedback from CCP, is probably finished. In closing, we can all agree that, despite taking a slight nerf, the Stratios is still a fearsome ship with amazing damage and damage application in a covert droppable package. While it might not be as useful as a gimmick DED complex ship as it was when it did more damage, it's easy to understand that, despite what anyone might have said, the relevancy for one ship at one gimmick DED complex is completely irrelevant, not a design goal, and should be dismissed as the offhand comment that it was instead of being written on stone slabs and carried down a mountain. So then your contention is that the stated design intent was an offhand comment and thus the ships other aspects toward that focus are thus unnecessary, including the high drone bay to bandwidth ratio, large cargo hold and scan and hacking bonuses? Because if running 4-6/10 DED's and other scanned combat sites wasn't the focus, the cruiser has a lot more it could stand to lose to be "balanced" and could actually stand being removed since we probably don't need a DPS focused cloaky hot dropper. Considering that the design intention of higher level DED plexes is to do them in groups, then yes, I can't imagine that CCP is gonna lose any sleep because your projected solo ISK / hour drops in a handful of DED sites that 98% of Eve doesn't even run. Would you like to retry addressing my post rather than making up isk/hour arguments I never made to respond to?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 788	Posted - 2013.10.25 20:26:00 - [65] - Quote Querns wrote: I did, but if you'd like to pretend that your issues aren't about that then I'd recommend we move the discussion to EVE Fiction where it belongs. I run lvl 4's in cap stable marauders half the time. The other half I run a rattlesnake because drones are awesome. I run inefficient ships with inefficient and cheap setups. Arguing efficiency and isk/hour is not something I can knowledgeably do. I'm aware it suits your purpose to pretend it's all anyone cares about, but surely some part of you has the capacity to think beyond that illusion, right? Querns wrote: This is exactly my point -- the anger being levied here with the constant references to marginal Eve PVE content is directly related to the fact that a ship previously thought to cut the time taken to run these sites is being nerfed below the threshold where changing ships is required. It could have been worse -- CCP could have made this change after you had purchased your new toys but before you managed to waddle into a DED complex to actually use it. :V Hence the point of the dissenters here. It switching ships this is completely outclassed, other ships can scan and run then better and arguable run wider ranges of sites. Yes, there has to be some loss from say, an ishtar+helios combo in finding and doing sites, but there should still be enough teeth in this to actually do the same range and in reasonably close times.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 788	Posted - 2013.10.25 20:41:00 - [66] - Quote Querns wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Querns wrote: I did, but if you'd like to pretend that your issues aren't about that then I'd recommend we move the discussion to EVE Fiction where it belongs. I run lvl 4's in cap stable marauders half the time. The other half I run a rattlesnake because drones are awesome. I run inefficient ships with inefficient and cheap setups. Arguing efficiency and isk/hour is not something I can knowledgeably do. I'm aware it suits your purpose to pretend it's all anyone cares about, but surely some part of you has the capacity to think beyond that illusion, right? So, by your own admission, your beef with these ships is about a frame of reference you have no interest or experience in? And, curiously, the frame of reference you DO have is running Level 4 missions? And, judging by your eveboard at http://eveboard.com/pilot/Tyberius_Franklin/standings , you seem to have an awfully high standings with the Servant Sisters of Eve. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a textbook Ulterior Motive. I have high standings with their allies, and as a result them, and like to get the gear I use for exploration direct from the LP store. But again, you deflect from the fact of the matter and simply attempt to discredit based on shady "ulterior motives." So you won't address the actual gripes people have with the ships, discredit the intended purpose without much reason, and just state that anyone with a dissenting opinion shouldn't be listened to because of space pixel greed. Regarding the ability to run sites, yes, I have to defer to those with more experience, and this ship was something I was hoping would help be an in for that to me. But if those who know are stating this won't work for the purposes intended, I'm not going to argue back on that, especially when the other side is arguing the same, but that this doesn't matter. I will however question the idea of this being needed considering the vehement rejection it faced in the early portion of the thread for it's PvP application which is still largely intact. I stand by what I said about the ship possibly needing further adapted to the gank role by reduction, or removed perhaps or reworked so as to not work so well at the gank side from another angle, any of which would devalue the great stockpiles of LP that your imagination has dreamt up for me.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 788	Posted - 2013.10.25 21:00:00 - [67] - Quote Lunkwill Khashour wrote: The Stratios loses a single drone and suddenly everyone is mad that they won't be getting their cloaky Ishtar? I would have much rather seen the turrets save maybe one and 1-2 high's go, even if not reimbursed to lows. Would have served the PvE side better I believe alongside a modest reduction in the drone damage bonus to 7.5%.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 788	Posted - 2013.10.25 21:10:00 - [68] - Quote Harvey James wrote: well if they were to strip some highs to allow for 5th drone it ends up with lots of utility highs which would make it be even more OP than it already is being +1 slot up on other drone boats It can still use those as utility highs now. 4 neuts + 4 sentries/heavies with full tackle and double web is still doable with this iteration. On the other hand we'd be looking at 2 neuts and 0.875 more effective drones. Conversely the 4 blaster(or whatever other turret) + drones fit is pretty well neutered compared to the current iteration, albeit admittedly probably forcing a neut into the fit.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 788	Posted - 2013.10.25 21:23:00 - [69] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Now consider 2 Statios vs Ishtar&Helios. Then consider Ishtar+Stratios. In both of those situations you are probably running a 6/10 faster than just a solo Ishtar with a prober helping it find the sites fast. Considering that changing ships was mentioned, Helios to 2 Ishtars, since were increasing to 2 pilots is still a winning scenario. I'll grant you the all in one is an advantage when solo or changing ships is prohibitive, but usually those living in low would have that under control I would think, so I guess this becomes the vessel of day trippers to lowsec running 4-5/10's? That is undeniably a niche, but it's a much lower one than the PvP implications that the ship still holds.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 789	Posted - 2013.10.25 21:40:00 - [70] - Quote Xolve wrote: Gummy Worm wrote: I don't think many people are arguing that it cannot kill anything, but simply the applied nerf mostly concerned its PVE capabilities when the PVP capabilities was the original concern. Despite being told it was a very thoroughly discussed topic, the specific nerf didn't make sense. We all would agree that something had to be done. Nobody is saying that the original setup was not broken on paper, but the fix wasn't very well thought out from what we've been told and presented. Explain to me why losing 20% of a fifth drone matters so much then. It's not 20% of a 5th drone, it's 20% of 5 drones, or 1.5 of what was 7.5 effective drones. I'm not sure how a 20% loss isn't significant in an obvious way, so I can't really answer. I would ask though, in PvE where the drones are likely to far outshine your turrets due to utility further cutting out your highs, how does a 20% loss not matter much?

Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 789	Posted - 2013.10.26 02:59:00 - [71] - Quote Ambassador Spock wrote: PotatoOverdose wrote: Cammi Kazi wrote: drone proteus See here's the problem. That little bit, those two words right there? Yeah, that's not a thing. As in, no one flies one. Ever. People fly vexors, ishtars, vexor navy issues, domi's, domi navy issues, sins, myrmidons, etc. as drone botats. The drone proteus is not a thing that happens. By strange coincidence I happen to be in a drone Proteus right at this exact moment. So I'd have to disagree with your statement. And maybe it's not a strange coincidence, as I fly my drone Proteus all the time... I to enjoyed that ship for a time as a highsec explorer, the one I have is still fit that way.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.