EVE Search - Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Scylla] Strategic Cruiser Defensive Subsystems

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 906	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:28:38 - [1] - Quote Step in the right direction but would like to see some mobility penalties and a little bigger sig penalty on the supplemental type subs and less of an EHP nerf unless there are specific cases where its game breaking rather than a token tweak to hp to keep people complaining happy. Increasing sig on the warfare sub is a nice idea to make off grid links less safe.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 906	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:56:50 - [2] - Quote Prospector Monk wrote: Signature Radius: 150 (-15) Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Well I guess the lvl 5 mission runner are pleased? AFAIK (haven't run the numbers) its just to offset the loss of passive regen from the loss of overall HP as its quite a big hit to PVE passive shield tanked setups - don't think you get anything extra out of it.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 906	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:48:15 - [3] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: My question is, is this slight nerf to the tanking capacities really so critical that these changes can't wait for the full balance pass of T3 cruisers? It is an interesting question.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 907	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:43:52 - [4] - Quote Tineoidea Asanari wrote: Talrath wrote: So you want to nerf T3s...sure, then you need to start lowering their price and removing the risk of losing skillpoints -_- or else no one will fly them, cause the risk (Price and skillpoints) just arent worth it... Compare the T3s with other ships with that pricetag: Those are mainly pirate or navy battleships. T3s dont only fit a far superior tank (in addition to a signature that is ridiculous), they also hit far better, align and warp faster, etc. pp. - long story short, they are preferred in every thinkable way and the only downside are the 4 days of additional trainingtime if you lose one. You dont lose T3 that often (unless you dont know what you do), so I'd call that pretty balanced. With railguns getting nerfed (hitting both the aweful railgu and railprot doctrines) and T3s rebalanced, it might allow a new meta consisting of mainly battleship fleets crushing each others head instead of slippery petes and Ishtars cowarding everywhere. Battleships still need a touch before people would really want to use them like that mind - after awhile the warp speed, etc. becomes mind numbing. The "problem" with T3s IMO has always been that and, and, and, and factor rather than any one specific attribute being a problem (even EHP) I don't personally mind a T3 having a faction BS style tank or better but in no way should that be combined with HAC like mobility and signature. Strategic cruisers should be powerful but there should always be a choice and compromise.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 914	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:45:33 - [5] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Challenge accepted. [Tengu, Current Railgu] Damage Control II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Large Shield Extender II Explosive Deflection Field II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 10MN Afterburner II Large Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M 250mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Tengu Offensive - Magnetic Infusion Basin Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst 334kEHP with links and heated. No implants. Cap stable. ~500dps. lrn2EFT One of the more convincing arguments for a EHP nerf - my main problem with that fit though isn't the 200+K EHP but the fact it can do that while able to potentially 1km/s heated AB w/ links, align in under 6 seconds and 150ish sig (when linked) and still a very respectable 230 ish sig when not linked... in that configuration it should be more like half that kind of mobility and 300 odd sig.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 920	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:09:58 - [6] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: WOW because links aren't the common denominator with most of the games imbalances, no Sir not at all. To balance links I propose that getting killed in a links ship (any ship fitted with links) resets one of your links skills to level 4 randomly. Probably not the best way to illustrate it, but t3s do tend to be used in conjunction with links more than other ships. Point still stands though - even unlinked it has ridiculous mobility and sig for the tank, that kind of ability should be reserved for the resist sub-system along with having to make the choice of less ehp.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 922	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:24:47 - [7] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: The Tengu can solo pvp, it just costs a lot lot more than other solo pvp vessels and isn't especially good at it. The 100mn/active tanked fit does pretty well - though you need deep pockets and more skill and nerve than I have to produce results with it.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 931	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:24:52 - [8] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: WOW because links aren't the common denominator with most of the games imbalances, no Sir not at all. To balance links I propose that getting killed in a links ship (any ship fitted with links) resets one of your links skills to level 4 randomly. No, they're not. Because they apply equally to everything. For comparison, a Rohk with those same links will have a sigRad >500m without an MWD and around 170k EHP, heated. Point of my earlier comparison was that your far more likely to see links used in conjunction with a T3 than a lot of other ships, even without the links though the overall mobility and sig is out of whack with the EHP by a considerable margin - that isn't to say the answer is to nerf EHP. Changes to T3s should be about making the player make a little more choice/trade off not about taking a chainsaw to any one attribute.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 945	Posted - 2015.03.04 12:11:56 - [9] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Rroff wrote: Point of my earlier comparison was that your far more likely to see links used in conjunction with a T3 than a lot of other ships, even without the links though the overall mobility and sig is out of whack with the EHP by a considerable margin - that isn't to say the answer is to nerf EHP. Changes to T3s should be about making the player make a little more choice/trade off not about taking a chainsaw to any one attribute. T3 cruisers need to be balanced with the other cruisers not battleships. These thing need a chainsaw applied to to them to drag them down to the point where they don't invalidate T2 cruisers. No reason why you can't have the options for both, having the supplemental type sub-systems allow for huge tank but not great mobility/sig doesn't tread on the other T2 cruiser's toes and you have the option of using the adaptive type sub-system if you want the mobility and sig to compare to T2 cruisers at a loss to potential EHP. The fact is a lot of T2 cruisers are somewhere between bland and uninteresting and downright ineffective cutting T3s back to compare to and using that as your base to work off would do nothing good for the game. Possibly enhancing the specialisation of T2 cruisers into some interesting capabilities would be of more benefit than nerfing T3s into mediocrity - I don't even know why I would fly a vagabond or muninn these days T3 or no - though rise hasn't done too bad a job with recons - I can see myself using 1-2 of them now that I wouldn't have touched before.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 945	Posted - 2015.03.04 13:21:27 - [10] - Quote baltec1 wrote: What is so bad about reducing T3 HP to below that of the HIC? Problem is doing that so that the top end configurations fall in line without the lower end configurations (i.e. where your actually having to use module slots for other functionality) being pushed so low they aren't feasibly useful any more - for various reasons whether thats actually because they are too low or because they are too low for the costs of using a T3. I actually don't disagree with the specific scenario involving the tengu above - though I'm against knee jerk slashing of EHP as an answer - partly because in abstract a lot of changes in Eve seem to revolve around X is OP no one is happy until X is bashed into the ground, then Y which was in a good place before becomes OP so no one is happy until Y is bashed into the ground, then Z which was previously obscured in mediocrity becomes the new focus and the circle continues.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.05 15:00:42 - [11] - Quote Kagura Nikon wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The rail Tengu is used at far ranges and disengages when things get close enough to start shooting it with good DPS. I don't think a nerf to tank is going to change much at all. If the nerf to the tank also nerf signature radius. THen it can at least be alpha struck. At which point people will just stop using them due to not having enough tank and something else will become the new focus of cries to nerf it into the ground because its OP!!!.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.06 12:19:49 - [12] - Quote James Zimmer wrote: Rroff wrote: Kagura Nikon wrote: McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The rail Tengu is used at far ranges and disengages when things get close enough to start shooting it with good DPS. I don't think a nerf to tank is going to change much at all. If the nerf to the tank also nerf signature radius. THen it can at least be alpha struck. At which point people will just stop using them due to not having enough tank and something else will become the new focus of cries to nerf it into the ground because its OP!!!. If we're talking about the Tengu, even if it gets a nerf to sig as well as tank, it will still outtank and outrange an Eagle, and will still be the best sniping cruiser in the game. Sure, if a nerfed Tengu fleet fights a Tempest Fleet Issue fleet at the edge of the Tempest Fleet Issue's optimal range, it's going to get torn up, fast. Frankly, it SHOULD get torn up. Cruiser fleets shouldn't do well at playing battleship against battleships at battleship ranges. In the same way that battleships don't do well against speed tanking cruisers at cruiser ranges. T3 cruisers have a function, but that function should be that of a specialized, very strong cruiser, not a smaller, faster battleship. Wouldn't want people to all intents and purposes be safe sitting out of range while engaging an enemy I say remove railguns from the game that will solve the problem.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.06 23:53:36 - [13] - Quote PowerFromHouwer wrote: Rroff wrote: Prospector Monk wrote: Signature Radius: 150 (-15) Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening +5% Shield HP and +3% Shield Recharge Speed per level (previously +10% Shield HP) Well I guess the lvl 5 mission runner are pleased? AFAIK (haven't run the numbers) its just to offset the loss of passive regen from the loss of overall HP as its quite a big hit to PVE passive shield tanked setups - don't think you get anything extra out of it. Didn't do the numbers but less hp for more regen seems favorable AFAIK its just to put regen back where it was - the loss of buffer in itself isn't huge but the knock on effect on passive regen would mean that many common PVE passive tanked fits would have become useless for the kind of places you'd use a tengu.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 948	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:07:01 - [14] - Quote Jezza McWaffle wrote: And jack of all trades would mean no one would use it. I don't think twisting T3s back into what they "should" have been will have a net good effect for the game - the game needs something like T3s - from hanging out on a couple of forums that have long running eve online threads that run into the 10s of thousands of posts and 100s of thousands of views one common aspect I see is that the ability to put their own creativity or personal touch on something and showing that off (look at the success of minecraft) interests a good number of players and T3s have some aspect of that (albeit not to the level of something like minecraft) it might seem silly from the perspective of long time players but the customisation options, being a viable platform to "bling" out, the "prestige" aspect (yeah it might seem silly to long time players) and so on draws quite a few players and shouldn't be underestimated - you don't see discussions of things like T2 ships or drakes, etc. in the same way - the other ships that have the same kind of interest are to a much lesser extent marauders and capitals - which tend to be less accessible to newer players anyway. I'm quite interested in what could be done with the "jack of all trades" original intention for T3s but IMO that would be better done with a new line of ships.

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,06s, ref 20251024/1322
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.