[10:45] <ccp_fozzie> yeah we've definitely been seeing use of them @rocket_x
[10:47] <ccp_fozzie> but like you alluded to the big question isn't whether tackle rorquals are situationally powerful (they definitely are) but whether that powerful tool is making EVE a worse game
[10:48] <ccp_fozzie> the cyno use is also definitely something we're keeping an eye on. We would really like to preserve the cyno for helping get reinforcements to a mining fleet, but if we need to we could definitely add restrictions.
[10:49] <ccp_fozzie> one of the nice things about the "panic needs asteroids" concept is that it helps handle a lot of situations that have had concerns raised about them (all three potentially problematic uses discussed in this channel over the last day) with one rule while also completely preserving the utility of panic for mining rorquals
[10:50] <ccp_fozzie> not committing to anything atm but definitely want to have some options investigated in case we decide we want to do something
[16:00] <steveronuken> !logs
[16:00] <slackbot> https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/
[16:03] <capqu> @ccp_fozzie i think attaching the NSA penalties re:ewar to the panic or even industrial core would be a good "fix" if rorqual balance is considered broken
[16:04] <capqu> i personally think a 7.5 min guarenteed tackle + cyno anywhere in the universe is a bit rediculous
[16:05] <capqu> and would give it 0 max targets locked while in PANIC
[16:05] <capqu> but thats a balance desicion
[16:05] <ccp_fozzie> in your opinion, would the fact that the NSA/triage penalties wouldn't impact cynos at all be a problem?
[16:06] <capqu> if it can't lock anything or use any ewar while the cynos up then nah i don't think so
[16:06] <ccp_fozzie> it is intended that the Rorqual can still punch back at the people attacking its mining fleet while in panic
[16:06] <ccp_fozzie> which would be removed with a hard 0 lock limit
[16:06] <capqu> then the 0 lock obviously wouldnt work, but do you want them to be able to tackle their aggressors too?
[16:07] <capqu> or just force them to leave
[16:07] <ccp_fozzie> I'd consider allowing them to tackle the aggressors a "nice to have"
[16:07] <capqu> then i'd say the only real issue is the invulnerable-tackle-cyno
[16:07] <ccp_fozzie> we can remove it if we see a need but if we were just looking at mining rorquals in a vacuum I'd prefer to keep it
[16:08] <ccp_fozzie> which is part of the motivation for looking for other alternatives to the NSA/triage penalty to keep up our sleeves
[16:09] <capqu> what about something like all disruptors maximum strength of 1
[16:09] <capqu> while in panic, is that technically feasable?
[16:09] <capqu> because then at least it can't be used as an invulnerable brick to lock a super/titan offensively
[16:09] <ccp_fozzie> yeah that would be possible
[16:10] <capqu> seems a bit band aid though
[16:11] <capqu> in general i think the rorqual changes are pretty great tho, ignoring the tackle hic portion of them
[16:12] <capqu> maybe the jump fatigue reduction could use a tweak
[16:12] <capqu> but putting rorquals back in belts and making them profitable is win/win for everyone who enjoys both sides of the content it creates
[16:18] <steveronuken> First problem with the asteroid version: There are anomalies with asteroids in them. Which makes them a place you can use a rorq as an invulnerable jump hictor.
[16:19] <capqu> thats very specific
[16:19] <ccp_fozzie> honestly that feels like the kind of situation where the attackers get to feel really clever
[16:19] <ccp_fozzie> which can be a positive
[16:19] <capqu> being able to tackle a super/titan while in iceblock is straight up broken imo
[16:19] <capqu> regardless of the context
[16:19] <capqu> asteroid or not
[16:20] <capqu> jump-hic - fine
[16:20] <capqu> jump-hic with invulnerability?
[16:20] <capqu> over the top
[16:21] <capqu> think about the alternative ships you can jump-hic with
[16:21] <capqu> widow - paper
[16:22] <capqu> chimera - full fatigue, not much in the tank department with full tackle
[16:25] <capqu> then you consider other positives of rorqual
[16:25] <capqu> crazy good sub cap dps
[16:26] <capqu> top tier jump range
[16:26] <capqu> no fatigue
[16:26] <capqu> why do other ships even exist?
[16:26] <capqu> to accommodate the rorqual
[16:26] <capqu> :thinking_face:
[17:18] <rocket_x> the hilarious irony would be that being in a belt in a rorqual is considered dangerous by the rorqual pilot
[17:18] <rocket_x> and attacking a rorqual in a belt is more dangerous for a super than anywhere else
[17:18] <rocket_x> which is kinda funny :D