| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
514
   |
Posted - 2017.05.31 12:52:16 -
[1] - Quote
Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete.
And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
514
|
Posted - 2017.05.31 16:25:32 -
[2] - Quote
My hope would be that nullified t3s aren't impossible to catch as they are now; align times / sig radius increases - these will affect how these ships work. But they can still be effective in grabbing tackle through a bubble in null or doing exploration. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
515
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 15:30:23 -
[3] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed.
T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role.
Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot.
In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship...
Still reading comments in here, but there isn't enough info on new stats to really let us theory craft. I think a lot will depend on resist profiles, powergrid, and cpu. There are some potentially worrying ewar and tank slot combo's with the revisions. Again, I would say that until you can put some numbers behind them using the 'old' t3c stats isn't going to give you a good idea of their power. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
515
|
Posted - 2017.06.15 14:11:14 -
[4] - Quote
Dior Ambraelle wrote:@ Noxisia Arkana
I'm just curious: did you see here any ideas that you personally like and/or agree with lately?
Also, @ CCP Fozzie
I know you have a lot of work to do, but could you also communicate toward us, sometimes please? As I was reading this thread, I saw multiple people (including me) having concerns about the exploration kit is tied to the cloak-based defense. Could you please explain why exactly do you think this is good/necessary?
There's a couple of good ideas - remember the focus group chat logs are public and linked in the first post by CCP Fozzie.
My favorite (personally) thus far is giving the t3s base stats and having the subsystems alter them by a fixed amount or percentage. It sounded like the devs were open to that idea as well. Not that it was my suggestion but I supported it for a couple of reasons:
1. It'll make it easier to do math when we get some numbers on what the nerfs will do to these ships.
2. It makes it much easier for a new player to look at the ship and evaluate it's worth somewhat without playing with 100 subsystem combinations.
3. It just makes sense.
There's been push back on having the probe tied to the cloak subsystem as well and we asked for it to be a ship bonus (Null FCs, lowsec, ded hunters, and others would benefit from that).
I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.
There's some good industrial advice (and exploration) being given to ccp as well (such as wh data/relic sites aren't worth anything because of demand for those materials related to t3c production).
We have similar concerns that I've seen voiced in the forum - certain slot layouts (8 mids, lows, or highs on some of the sub combos) seem like they could be a problem but until we know the cpu/pg and base stats of the ships I'm not going to say that they aren't workable.
Me personally, I've suggested/agreed that the RR sub can still fit weapons (since dual boxing or running c4s with a small group of RR tengus is something I've enjoyed in the past and doesn't seem broken). I also expressed concern over the logi sub's initial range with large shield reps and they may end up only getting a fitting reduction (again nothing final) for mediums.
There's a ton of speculation and my personal opinion after bearing/hunting in wormhole space for about 4ish years. There's a pretty varied group but I doubt we'll get it all right - so I encourage you to read what you can handle of our logs and make suggestions (you could just CTRL+F for fozzie to get a quicker view on what the devs are coming back with for discussion). |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
515
|
Posted - 2017.06.15 15:44:40 -
[5] - Quote
Yeah, we were told that changes to the recon ships were out of scope - but I think that'd be a nifty bonus; although the amount of info on dscan in a busy system could be a little overwhelming. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
515
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 14:56:45 -
[6] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Ah ok. Personally i have no problem with the cloak, probe and exploration bonuses being on the same sub systems, it actually makes scene! My problem is the new cloak defensive subsystem is linked to a local repair bonus, which will be useless in 90% of the situations cloaked ships are currently used for. There are so many sacrifices you have to make to fit a viable local reps tank that is is often better to use a passive, thus making the bonus unused.
I think the point is that they wanted to nerf the effective tank of cloaky T3s (whether solo or grabbing tackle) and they know the rep bonus is the weakest benefit that they could give it. I don't really disagree with their decision to do so.
Edit: active rep bonus also sucks for fleet work; which I think works well with the covops cloak. Rep bonus is better on solo ships (although buffer is the norm on most tackle anyway; and I agree it'd be unused often). It's like the Brutix - you can buffer fit for a good effect but it's not going to end up with the prophecy's stats. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
515
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 15:28:15 -
[7] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote: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
Fozzie mentioned pretty early in the discussion (late may?) that the original spreadsheet some of the subsystems looked a little powerful and some lackluster. I'm sure they'll change; eustise, caprisunkraftfoods, exooki and others had pretty solid feedback.
I suggest reading the comments on the focus group; the spreadsheet was a first pass - and I think they're aware that there are some extremely strong and lackluster weapon systems:
Captured from the May 30th logs (conversation starts around 1500). The link is in the first post if you'd like to read.
ccp_fozzie @mawderator Legion drone/missile is probably the one that seems most likely to break things, but Proteus hybrid and Loki projectile also seem a bit dangerzone
ccp_fozzie One big one is that it's a form of cost that is unique and distinct from our other form of costs. Costs for ships can come in the form of minerals, moongoo, LP, ISK, special drops, and SP in the case of the T3Cs. In general we're looking to highlight and emphasize the differences between T3Cs and other ships rather than make them more similar.
ccp_fozzie well if you don't balance based on small subsections we'd only ever balance for highsec
ccp_fozzie what I had in mind in this version of the design would be that the cloak subsystem wouldn't have a raw HP penalty compared to at least the normal active rep one, but that the HP would be less concentrated into the main tank types
There's a lot of concern about niche play styles, creating differences between the t3cs and other ships, and making sure the weapon subs make sense.
Edit - I had to edit out the time stamps because the forum thought I was using html... |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
515
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 15:38:17 -
[8] - Quote
@Omnathious Deninard: I'm going to quote fozzie here and say that I think the point is to make the ships unique from other ships not more similar. But I get what you're going for. As someone that lived out of a domi for way too long in my early eve career I have a deep love for drones and like extra bay space for when they get shot at... but I'm not sure that the t3c's should get that same luxury.
I'd also enjoy the bay as part of the base ship, but a blaster proteus with 100 mb of drone width seems kind of broken. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
515
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 16:38:59 -
[9] - Quote
@Omnathious Deninard: ah the bay, I thought you were thinking both. Right now the blaster prot gets +25 mb and the drone gets +100. Seems okay. I think having the bay on the hull might be weird because you could end up with 25 mb and have a 200 m3 bay or 100 mb with 200m3; which would make the drone sub kind of crappy (less flights). The m3 is hypothetical, not based on any real numbers but illustrative. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
516
|
Posted - 2017.06.26 22:51:32 -
[10] - Quote
BESTER bm wrote:Dior Ambraelle wrote:Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this.
I don't think that's entirely fair. There are play styles that get wrecked with updated (for instance, the warp speed changes killed my love of battleships). However, in the focus group CCP is trying to accommodate a lot of play styles. I think it's inevitable that someone's going to get boned but they're trying to minimize it.
I watched Chance's video - I'm putting together fits now. I 1k dps /1.5-18k tank cloaky tengu seems poweful (although obv not in groups).
FYI, I've been on vacation a week. I'm still reading through (and sometimes skipping) a lot of text. |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
516
|
Posted - 2017.06.28 16:13:27 -
[11] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:@Focus group, am I reading right that Fozzie has moved the warp speed bonus to the nullification subsystem?
Why was it removed from the non-nullified sub? This removes the ability for a T3 to travel fast.
The logs linked in the first page show the reasoning. But there's a lot of discussion still around this. Essentially it's a tip to the nullified subs agility sucking. |
| |
|