EVE Search - Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2017.05.30 18:12:35 - [1] - Quote legion offense seems weak compared to the others i guess thats just its thing
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2017.05.30 18:56:42 - [2] - Quote Urlos Rinah wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Cypherous wrote: The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration Yup preserving exploration gameplay is definitely a priority for CCP as well. Why did you transfered scaning bonuses to deffence slot? some exploration sites do a lot of damage, with this i can say "Farewel forever" to a sleeper sites, i do not care about offence at all at that, please move exploration bonuses to other slot, offence with cloak as it was for all i care. EXPLORERS NEED DEFENCE!!! cloak sub gets 7.5% rep/level bonus
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2017.05.30 20:29:45 - [3] - Quote hm on closer inspection this is my tc3 summary legion 5lows/3mids crap damage options crap damage mods proteus 4lows/4mids (3 lows/5 mids for ewar...) real nice damage options crap tank options crap damage mods tengu 6 mids/2 lows crap damage options crap damage mods loki 5 lows/3mids (5mids/3 lows for ewar) great damage options with drones on all subs for some reason selectable tank well loki is looking way above the rest of the crowd due to dual tank options therefore having better slot options and also having great damage subs the others all suck slot layouts too restrictive no real choice of subs due to slot restrictions crap damage subs for legion and tengu crap tank for proteus just my 2 cents on current stage of development feel free to correct me if im wrong
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2017.05.30 21:44:01 - [4] - Quote Aernir Ridley wrote: I don't see any combination that shows the slot layouts you've listed there except on the Proteus (unless you're using cloaky nullified but you should never use that for combat). The Tengu for example in a standard config is 6 mid/3 low for solo (although without the cap regen bonus it will be difficult to use), and 6 mid/4 low for fleet. The damage bonuses are also all the same that they are now, minus Rapid Lights. yeah youre right i forgot the slots from the prop subs panic over for now i'll take another look tomorrow its getting late
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 47	Posted - 2017.06.03 11:59:55 - [5] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: The crazy conspiracy theories about SP loss being maintained for infinite financial gain are just nuts. If CCP was that greedy for injector cash they would have given T3Ds SP loss. well t3cs had sp loss as a 'balancing' mechanism people said it was dumb and made no sense then t3ds came out with no sp loss because it was dumb and made no sense then extractors came out and t3cs get rebalanced and suddenly sp loss isnt dumb and makes sense funny coincidence
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 48	Posted - 2017.06.04 13:59:13 - [6] - Quote Sterling Blades wrote: I also read the footnote at the far bottom of that google doc spreadsheet about most offensive systems across the board probably being too good yeah not sure why the footnote says that they dont really look that good to me well proteus is good but its gallente so its expected loki looks good but still projectiles tengu and legion look crap
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 55	Posted - 2017.06.06 17:53:06 - [7] - Quote zbaaca wrote: tengu 12 eff launchers vs loki 10 loki have exp vel 25% + rlml bonus while tengu plain stupid kinetic damage . insert falceplam here . maybe add instead kinetic some exp rad bonus ? with current rof bonus it' will have about 9.6 launcers but superior application (well maybe crank up rof up to 10 effective) . yet i still doubt that it will massacre small target like loki will do with rlml bonuses , but will make hml valiable again not to mention loki can choose tank style so gets a lot more options to go with those missiles
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 68	Posted - 2017.06.08 15:08:42 - [8] - Quote baltec1 wrote: This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp why shouldn't a t3c be able to when its specifically fitted to avoid it
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 70	Posted - 2017.06.08 16:32:52 - [9] - Quote zbaaca wrote: April rabbit wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp Which one in particular? jump freights . ceptors to ignore 95% of camps . bombers to choose when and where they want do die . blops that jumps , curse and friends to choose engagements . etc . i guess you get the idea yeah all of those and a few others the yacht the little mining frigs etc after these changes t3cs will be easier to catch they get agility nerf and nulli sub gets agility penalty
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 93	Posted - 2017.06.11 05:01:51 - [10] - Quote why drones on a tengu missile sub but ignore the fact legion laser sub needs them like 5x as much

JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 97	Posted - 2017.06.11 15:53:44 - [11] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Is this now touching the realm of power creep? At least in terms of the re-balance? not even remotely we are so far short of the realm of power creep its depressing not talking about t3cs specifically just the meta in general
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 97	Posted - 2017.06.11 15:56:18 - [12] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs hacs but yeah they lack drones because they arent supposed to be self sufficient they were originally designed to be fleet support ships that can pick off small targets from range such as stealth bombers they can still do that pretty well but its such a niche role they just suck and i dont see why legion should be forced into that sucky role just because zealot sucks
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 115	Posted - 2017.06.16 15:09:26 - [13] - Quote im gonna iterate my 3 major complaints with the proposed offensive systems legion laser sub is a waste of time legion missile sub is a waste of time tengu rail sub is a waste of time
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 115	Posted - 2017.06.16 15:16:03 - [14] - Quote i think all the subs desrve a 25mb drone bay its dumb to think any ship[ builder would build a cruiser without a flight of light drones to defend itself
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 129	Posted - 2017.06.19 08:39:44 - [15] - Quote seems no one is happy with the proposed changes so far well at least loki is still looking decent
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 130	Posted - 2017.06.20 05:02:19 - [16] - Quote Uriam Khanid wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs . a small correction seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 131	Posted - 2017.06.20 16:22:40 - [17] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: Uriam Khanid wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs . a small correction seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash No that's good balancing, bad balancing is buffing everything else to match the 4 problem ships. We call that power creep and it's very damaging to the wider game. so by nerfing t3cs to hac levels hacs wont be in the trash anymore cant say im convinced also i think cses are fine tbh theyre in a nice place and have a good role
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 131	Posted - 2017.06.20 19:37:31 - [18] - Quote baltec1 wrote: HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers. which other cruisers the ones all in the trash only (non t3) cruisers i see are gila cyna stratios all pirates maybe a vaga dies or a cerb dies meaningless garbage theres only one good cruiser and that is the cruiser you dont see pilgrim stratios
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 131	Posted - 2017.06.20 21:08:42 - [19] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers. which other cruisers the ones all in the trash only (non t3) cruisers i see are gila cyna stratios all pirates maybe a vaga dies or a cerb dies meaningless garbage theres only one good cruiser and that is the cruiser you dont see pilgrim stratios <- this one is garbage Thats because you are used to T3C. how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 132	Posted - 2017.06.20 23:33:33 - [20] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship? i dont think its unfair to set some meta boudaries somewhere

JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 132	Posted - 2017.06.21 13:10:34 - [21] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship? im just asking how many hacs it takes to kill a rattlesnake also is there a reason they shouldnt be compared they are both ships
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 132	Posted - 2017.06.21 17:22:12 - [22] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years. maybe they used to years ago but not anymore meta changed a lot since those days
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 133	Posted - 2017.06.21 20:55:30 - [23] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years. maybe they used to years ago but not anymore meta changed a lot since those days Yea, its dominated by a handful of overpowered ships, this change goes a long way to fixing that. by removing even more ships from the meta and making the handful of ships worth flying even smaller id prefer to see things go the other way with more ships being viable rather than less that isnt power creep its equalization
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 134	Posted - 2017.06.22 04:43:22 - [24] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years. maybe they used to years ago but not anymore meta changed a lot since those days Yea, its dominated by a handful of overpowered ships, this change goes a long way to fixing that. by removing even more ships from the meta and making the handful of ships worth flying even smaller id prefer to see things go the other way with more ships being viable rather than less that isnt power creep its equalization Buffing some 60+ ships to deal with 4 overpowered ships is very much power creep on a massive scale. nah its only power creep when the ships are buffed beyond the power levels already existing a long time ago there was the tiericide then along came pirate bs and marauder that is power creep now all the other ships need to be balanced against pirate bs and marauder
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 134	Posted - 2017.06.24 13:04:12 - [25] - Quote simple solution give t3cs a siege module make t3cs the marauders of the cruiser class
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 134	Posted - 2017.06.24 16:00:06 - [26] - Quote also earlier in the thread when i asked how many hacs it takes to kill a rattlesnake that was a trick question a rattlesnake cant be beaten by cruisers not even with support of 3-5 excqurors
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 134	Posted - 2017.06.24 18:11:25 - [27] - Quote nothing

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.