[00:06] <asher_elias> So I've been talking to goons about their concerns for T3Cs and also thinking about my experience with them
[00:08] <asher_elias> Main concerns for t3cs:
[00:08] <asher_elias> Number 1 concern
[00:08] <asher_elias> Loki web range bonus + massive tank warps the meta too much. A loki can burn 50km off his fleet and still receive full reps and apply 60km triple webs. Since a double plated loki moves 1700 m/s burning off the fleet and maintaining range is trivial. An x-type (often slaved) loki has become so common it's extremely hard to eliminate webs with prelocked logi. Not only does this mean you can't eliminate webs for a sig-tanking close orbiting fleet, it means that mid range fleets have no chance of operating in the 70-100km pocket. A web loki anchored on the FC already almost disrupts that without even leaving anchor, one burning slightly off-anchor ruins any range control you had with 3 webs. 7 or 8 lokis can apply webs to 24 different targets.
[00:08] <asher_elias> When recons were the webbing ship of the day you could hope to have a chance of killing them all and then using sig tank/range control or other means to then make it work. With lokis so effectively controling the range you can't run an unbonused tracking disruptor/guidance disruptor on a main line ship because the loki pushes your fleet outside of effective range. Once the loki has pushed your fleet out past 110km a machariel can track virtually any ship that can shoot effectively at that range.
[00:08] <asher_elias> The loki greatly increases the effective power of the battleship fleet, by having battleship tank, fast cruiser mobility, low sig, and huge web bonuses. They also effectively cement the machariel meta by pushing possible effective counters out of unbonused ewar range and into range where tracking speed becomes irrelevant.
[00:08] <asher_elias> Proposed solution: Change the loki web range bonus to 15% per level. Encourages bhaalgorn usage. Add a target painter bonus to a loki subsystems.
[00:08] <asher_elias> Concerns: Lack of great armour recons. Long webbers should be able to be killed by non alpha-strike doctrines, shield and armour huginns both have great web range and moderate tank. The shield huginn is probably better than the armour huginn, but that shouldn't justify the loki being left as a meta buster.
[00:08] <asher_elias> Number 2 concern
[00:08] <asher_elias> Cloak and nullification. This has come up many many times when talking to goons about what concerns they had about T3Cs. The general feeling that if you setup a gatecamp you're going to see insta-warp ceptors and cloak/nullified t3s means that people are less likely to gatecamp. Not only are they less likely to be in space, they are less likely to go around space because other people are similarly discouraged. This isn't limited to t3cs but is a concern for them. Lots of people describe how disheartening it is to see a t3 decloak in your gatecamp and you know you have almost no chance of catching it.
[00:08] <asher_elias> Proposed solution: Allow nullification and cloaking, but not both.
[03:19] <caprisunkraftfoods> Asher your entire first concern seems predicated on the unreasonable assumption that web lokis are unkillable. Also like, I feel you're getting close to encountering a fleet scenario that has other better plays
[03:21] <caprisunkraftfoods> Like you're saying damps don't work, wtf range are you at where a damp with 120k fall off isn't enough, but a web that overheats to ~50 is?
[04:09] <asher_elias> lokis are pretty easy to kill with machs, near impossible with megas
[04:27] <asher_elias> part of what makes lokis easy to kill with machs are other lokis
[04:31] <rowells> Then that's the real issue. Otherwise it'll be a conStantly creeping 50km+web range issue. Which none of the Blood Raider ships can match up well.
[04:31] <rowells> Obscene tank on all the T3s is what makes them so desirable in the first place
[04:34] <rowells> Or, at a minimum it's the factor that most decides over their equivalently bonuses counterparts
[05:08] <asher_elias> the tank wouldn't be a concern if the webs weren't so strong
[05:21] <rowells> It would still be a concern for any other use that may come out of it.
[05:21] <rowells> And not just the tank, but the speed as well.
[05:23] <rowells> Tank by itself isn't very useful, but you put something else on it and it practically doubles its value
[05:32] <rowells> It's practically all the bhaal has going for it if you pulle the Loki range back. Even if everything else on it is undesirable
[06:29] <white0rchid> I'm not entirely sure erasing a whole type of gameplay (cloak + nullified is the base of any hk due to prevalence of bubbles) based on the fact you can't gate camp them to death is particularly fair.
[06:32] <white0rchid> If you weigh up a couple of gate campers being "disheartened" to throwing the entire hunting meta into disarray I know which one I'd be more likely to support.
[06:35] <white0rchid> In short, removing nullification will remove a large reason for using t3s as hunters, effectively dropping them as a viable option from one type of gameplay. (It also opens us up to your next argument which could well be "remove insta warp captors too".
[06:49] <rowells> I could see agility going down a bit though. That would have some leeway to play with on a few fronts.
[06:50] <rowells> Maybe even nerf the alignment down a bunch and give it the combat recon dscan immunity.
[07:01] <lanyaie> I wouldn't consider that a good idea...
[07:01] <lanyaie> cloaky nullified ship that doesn't show up on d-scan...yeah no.
[07:30] <rowells> Well, most of the time it's not on dscan anyway
[08:59] <eustise> all cloaky nullified needs is more align time, if your gatecamp sabre cant decloak in 6-7 seconds, maybe it's not a good gatecamp :P
[09:01] <eustise> however, the number of availible lows on prot/leg in covops nullified is what gives them the slippery ability they now have
[10:03] <jintaan> I'm p sure that the Cloak - Null - Higgs may lead to the same issues we saw with the yacht
[10:05] <titus.tallang> elaborate, @jintaan? the "removes nulli" penalty is on the higgs rig, so i'd assume it applies to t3 nulli
[10:06] <jintaan> Oh, right, I forgot about that
[10:06] <jintaan> I thought it was fixed by stopping them from being fit to Yachts as that was proposed
[10:07] <titus.tallang> no, higgs rig can be fit to yacht but negates nullified
[10:07] <white0rchid> Yeah, I don't think we'd see too many issues with it, without nullification if they get bubbled then it's goodbye. They move so slow
[10:10] <jintaan> I want to weigh in on @asher_elias 's point around the operation sphere offered by Lokis vs Recons. It's very much the case, but as the sig tank and EHP is being nerfed as-is, do we need to do more to make it a trade off? I definitely think a buff to Recon armour tanks would be good (either by raw HP or resists) though.
[10:20] <jintaan> Right now you're looking at like 80k EHP on an armour recon vs 150k+ on a Loki (I know you can hit 200k+ with some bling but let's ignore that for a second). If Recons were 100k, and had a better sig tank vs a say, 130k EHP Loki, that makes it a more significant decision in fleet comp creation
[10:21] <jintaan> (I'd also like to keep the TPs to Recons specifically as that goes with all other races having secondary EWar as a T3 option)
[10:52] <white0rchid> Recons do have the better range already, that bonus is just shoved aside though due to the fact they'll pretty much insta-die.
[10:57] <eustise> if the ehp t3c nerf in support roles doesn't make recons more viable, that'll be a separate matter to solve after the t3c changes
[10:59] <starfleetcommander> I dont think the loki is a huge issue in major fleets, it is filling a role that recons cant do as noted above loki doesn't get a TP bonus which is good. With the coming sig increase will be easier to hit. Most major fleets have what around 3-5 lokis? on a bad day? Plenty of counter play in the game to counter these lokis atm
[11:00] <starfleetcommander> Few damps makes them useless
[11:01] <white0rchid> The difference is that mostly people don't fit weapons to the lokis, so they have a lot of fitting space to shove an extra plate in
[11:01] <white0rchid> That's why they have so much more ehp
[11:01] <white0rchid> Than a normal AHAC
[11:01] <starfleetcommander> yeah, i get that. they tend to have more ehp than most ships
[11:01] <starfleetcommander> but they tend not to be very fast
[11:01] <starfleetcommander> what 800m/s max?
[11:02] <starfleetcommander> if 10mn
[11:02] <white0rchid> Slower
[11:02] <white0rchid> Like 550-600ish
[11:03] <starfleetcommander> yeah exactly
[11:03] <starfleetcommander> i just checked
[11:03] <starfleetcommander> pretty easy to see it coming out
[11:03] <starfleetcommander> very very slowly
[11:03] <starfleetcommander> ive fight agasint these whilst being out numbered before
[11:04] <starfleetcommander> didnt stop me wining the fight
[11:04] <starfleetcommander> yes maybe the dual tank is alot
[11:04] <starfleetcommander> but they are awfully slow as hell
[11:04] <white0rchid> I guess it depends who you are fighting and what group you are. If you have the ability to trust several people to switch anchors regularly, then they're not that big of an issue.
[11:04] <starfleetcommander> swicth ancors?
[11:05] <jintaan> @starfleetcommander: normally we'll use 5-10
[11:05] <jintaan> In any fleet
[11:05] <white0rchid> Yes, if you've got lokis webbing your main anchor, your whole fleet stops unless you switch to another anchor
[11:05] <starfleetcommander> of around 250+ jin?
[11:05] <jintaan> 150-200
[11:05] <starfleetcommander> okay i gues your fighting around 200~
[11:05] <jintaan> Around 5% of fleet
[11:05] <jintaan> Yeah
[11:05] <starfleetcommander> so
[11:06] <starfleetcommander> its just a trading game
[11:06] <jintaan> Hell we use them in shield fleets
[11:06] <jintaan> Sure
[11:06] <starfleetcommander> im not intresting past 200 people in fleets
[11:06] <starfleetcommander> we all know its just killing the enemy
[11:06] <jintaan> But they are very difficult (in their current form) to trade for
[11:06] <starfleetcommander> if im fighting 200 guys with my 200 guys
[11:06] <jintaan> Well that's a shame because 200+ fleets do exist and we need to balance for it
[11:06] <starfleetcommander> im not going to waste time shooting a loki
[11:07] <starfleetcommander> either kill as much dps
[11:07] <jintaan> Depends what you're using tbh
[11:07] <starfleetcommander> well machs seem to be the "meta"
[11:07] <white0rchid> You've also got stacking penalties. Once you drop 3+ paints/webs on something, it doesn't matter how many more
[11:07] <starfleetcommander> if im kiting, i may have to kill a loki
[11:07] <jintaan> Yes, but Lokis being hard to trade for actively suppresses certain doctrines
[11:07] <white0rchid> So if you've got 2 lokis that don't die, or 10 lokis that don't die, it actually doesn't really matter
[11:07] <white0rchid> If you get where I'm coming from
[11:07] <starfleetcommander> ^^
[11:08] <jintaan> @white0rchid: spreading webs on a fleet is still incredible disruptive
[11:08] <starfleetcommander> look in the past i mainly fight out numbered
[11:08] <starfleetcommander> back with TRI and BL
[11:08] <jintaan> If you're both in fleets with different ideal engagement ranges
[11:08] <starfleetcommander> long ago
[11:08] <starfleetcommander> if we kite, we just kite the lokis as i said they are ab
[11:08] <starfleetcommander> slow as hell
[11:08] <jintaan> Not at all
[11:08] <jintaan> Most people dual prop them
[11:09] <jintaan> Because you have the fitting room to do so
[11:09] <starfleetcommander> okay fair point
[11:09] <starfleetcommander> but
[11:09] <starfleetcommander> if he goes past 50km
[11:09] <starfleetcommander> gg for him
[11:09] <starfleetcommander> i normally take damps
[11:09] <jintaan> If he goes past 50km of the Loki
[11:09] <jintaan> Yes
[11:09] <white0rchid> I wouldn't say most people do, PL/NC/Goons/SC/Tri don't
[11:10] <jintaan> I don't agree with Asher's suggestion, but I'm saying that he certainly has a point
[11:10] <jintaan> In that Lokis as they currently stand are a major impact on how the meta operates
[11:11] <jintaan> I think you underestimate how powerful 'snagging' people off anchor with webs is beyond application advantages
[11:11] <jintaan> Vs doctrines that want to kite armour doctrines
[11:11] <starfleetcommander> when i talk about tri
[11:11] <starfleetcommander> i talk about old TRI
[11:11] <starfleetcommander> 2013
[11:11] <starfleetcommander> just to lcear that up
[11:12] <jintaan> Ok
[11:12] <starfleetcommander> im on the same level as you jin
[11:12] <starfleetcommander> i can see a issue
[11:12] <starfleetcommander> but
[11:12] <starfleetcommander> there is plenty of counter play
[11:12] <jintaan> Well, of course
[11:12] <starfleetcommander> people need to use it more
[11:12] <jintaan> The question is how effective is that counter play
[11:13] <starfleetcommander> 2 damps
[11:13] <jintaan> And what do you sacrifice for that counter play
[11:13] <starfleetcommander> not much bc yuor armor
[11:13] <starfleetcommander> and you got 200 guys
[11:13] <jintaan> Ok, so where do damps go in my Shield fleet
[11:13] <starfleetcommander> if your kiting, 2 lachs
[11:13] <white0rchid> The same place webs do :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:13] <starfleetcommander> or 2-3 keres
[11:13] <starfleetcommander> only need 2 huginns
[11:13] <starfleetcommander> and the fc will be one of them
[11:14] <jintaan> So I have my counterplay for about 10 seconds
[11:14] <jintaan> Before they get BTFO because Recons have no tank
[11:14] <starfleetcommander> if your not a idiot ancor the loki will never get your kiting fleet
[11:14] <jintaan> Yeah I get that
[11:14] <starfleetcommander> dont get me wrong i have been caught
[11:14] <jintaan> But the question is if you need to kill a Loki
[11:14] <starfleetcommander> we are humand
[11:15] <jintaan> Shouldn't you be able to kill a Loki at roughly the same rate as DPS
[11:15] <white0rchid> The reality of it is, single plated lokis have worse tank than an AHAC, dual plated lokis have more tank than an AHAC, what is the solution?
[11:15] <starfleetcommander> yeah i get the tank is abit strong
[11:15] <starfleetcommander> but its not unkillable
[11:15] <jintaan> Under pre-locks it is to most doctrines that can go toe to toe with Machs
[11:15] <jintaan> But that's the same for most ships tbh
[11:15] <jintaan> And a Mach focused problem anyway
[11:16] <starfleetcommander> mach vs mach
[11:16] <starfleetcommander> lokis are irelavant
[11:16] <jintaan> Bear in mind I can't use Machs
[11:16] <starfleetcommander> you kill other machs
[11:16] <jintaan> As my dudes haven't trained them yet
[11:16] <jintaan> Soon, soon.
[11:16] <starfleetcommander> untill one of you cant alpha no more
[11:16] <starfleetcommander> lol
[11:16] <jintaan> The problem is that it's hard to talk about Armour support without going into the Mach meta
[11:16] <starfleetcommander> i used to fc them in Tri
[11:17] <white0rchid> So really, is there a way in which lokis can still be a valuable asset, but not so incredibly tanky that it completely erases them from the primary list
[11:17] <starfleetcommander> easy fleet
[11:17] <white0rchid> Or
[11:17] <jintaan> Machs are like old ishtars
[11:17] <jintaan> If your doctrine can't fight them
[11:17] <starfleetcommander> ishtars were way more fun :slightly_smiling_face:
[11:17] <jintaan> It's not a strategic doctrine
[11:17] <jintaan> I actually love FCing ishtars
[11:17] <white0rchid> Will the loki tank changes, in addition to the sig radius increase, make high tank lokis a little worse and more easily countered?
[11:17] <jintaan> I kinda want to do them again
[11:17] <starfleetcommander> ishtars are viable
[11:17] <starfleetcommander> but machs
[11:17] <jintaan> Yeah that's my thoughts exactly White
[11:17] <white0rchid> I have no idea of the numbers right now, so it's hard to say
[11:17] <starfleetcommander> and i dont see machs going away any time soon
[11:18] <jintaan> Machs won't go away unless there's a serious supply side hit
[11:18] <jintaan> Like 50%+
[11:18] <starfleetcommander> i do fleet the web loki is filling a key role in fleets
[11:18] <jintaan> Stockpiles are too big now
[11:18] <starfleetcommander> that nothing else does
[11:18] <eustise> the solutions to faction BSs are not shipstats, just dropping escalation numbers
[11:18] <jintaan> ^
[11:18] <eustise> it'll take a while to whittle them down though
[11:18] <jintaan> Yeah
[11:18] <starfleetcommander> thats a discussion for CCP internally i guess
[11:19] <jintaan> It's better sooner rather than later and I've been talking about it since last year on the CSM
[11:19] <white0rchid> Yes, the ships themselves aren't too good, simply the abundance of them
[11:19] <jintaan> vOv
[11:19] <jintaan> We'll see
[11:19] <jintaan> Like I mean even Provi is using pirate be
[11:19] <white0rchid> Cost (by way of supply/demand) is a legit balancing factor
[11:19] <jintaan> That's how you know you fucked up
[11:20] <starfleetcommander> back to the loki
[11:20] <starfleetcommander> i does fill a imporatant role
[11:20] <starfleetcommander> it*
[11:20] <jintaan> When the fucking third world backwater of Eve is flying the dankest ships
[11:20] <eustise> sure it is, but when you have the interconnected economic system of eve, every little change that happens pve side will have an effect on the pvp side
[11:20] <white0rchid> I'd like to await @ccp_fozzie on that one. Just to see what changes they are planning.
[11:20] <white0rchid> For the tank/sig radius
[11:20] <jintaan> Yeah, I think a gentle downtilt in tank and sig covers that easily
[11:20] <jintaan> Doesn't have to be huge
[11:21] <starfleetcommander> potentially yes
[11:21] <eustise> the important discussion that has to be had is whether a bigger sig will mean mean proteus gets a bigger model /s
[11:22] <jintaan> Like I said a 12.5% nerf to overall EHP (and a similar buff to recons) would give you 90-100 vs 130-140k
[11:23] <jintaan> Which seems like a good trade off between things like paints/webs range between the two
[11:23] <eustise> recons should just get the HAC resists that were slashed on the first go-around
[11:24] <jintaan> Id also like to suggest a buff to its shield HP to enable it to fill a shield role too, but that's a tad more controversial
[11:24] <jintaan> Id also like to suggest a buff to its shield HP to enable it to fill a shield role too, but that's a tad more controversial
[11:24] <jintaan> @eustise: agreed
[11:25] <jintaan> But sadly we're not the 'overall cruiser balance group'
[11:26] <eustise> yep, sadly so far the consensus here has been 'we want other ships to be as strong as the current t3cs'
[11:27] <eustise> when the matter here is dropping t3cs to the rest of the 'pleb' ships :stuck_out_tongue:
[11:27] <jintaan> Heh
[11:27] <jintaan> Well I think we're in agreement that more sig is healthy
[11:27] <jintaan> And a slight EHP nerf is ok
[11:28] <starfleetcommander> @jintaan Fozzie did metion to give the loki a similar resit profile as the svipul
[11:28] <starfleetcommander> so i think they will be viable
[11:28] <jintaan> The main concerns seem to be based around ensuring that unique roles like HKs survive
[11:28] <starfleetcommander> for shield that is
[11:28] <jintaan> Yeah the whole Resists vs HP thing was talked about
[11:29] <jintaan> As a dichotomy to present to the class
[11:29] <jintaan> Maybe nerfing it's EHP in resists not raw HP
[11:29] <starfleetcommander> it will be intresting to see what the bounese ccp will propose
[11:30] <eustise> slot layout is an important factor that i want to see
[11:30] <jintaan> Aye
[11:30] <jintaan> Especially with 1 less sub
[11:30] <jintaan> How are those slots redistributed
[11:30] <eustise> and i still have a beef with cloak under denfesive and not offensive
[11:30] <jintaan> Or potentially not re-added
[11:30] <jintaan> Always an option
[11:31] <jintaan> Slot economy on the T3s was always very good
[11:31] <eustise> as a t3c nullicloaker with a 6 lowslot layout i say 'aye'
[11:31] <white0rchid> I would suspect their arguments there
[11:31] <white0rchid> On the cloaking in def
[11:32] <white0rchid> Is that they had a choice, remote rep sub and cloak sub had to go to off/def
[11:32] <eustise> cloaking in def allows support in offense, which allows them to keep their current blops support role
[11:32] <white0rchid> Yes
[11:32] <eustise> however, i would still like to have a more dedicated blops ship, say the nestor
[11:32] <white0rchid> But also, support in defensive would be useless for other layouts
[11:32] <white0rchid> If you had remote reps in def sub
[11:32] <white0rchid> And weapons in off sub
[11:33] <white0rchid> What are your highs even for
[11:33] <white0rchid> If you're fitting rr, you can't really fit weapons at the same time
[11:33] <eustise> given you don't need that many slots for boosts
[11:33] <eustise> and you can raise the turret efficiency
[11:34] <jintaan> I'd love to see a switch to more utility highs in the layouts, but that's as a ninja-nerf to their power level, which doesn't seem to be super necessary with what we're talking about, which is bringing the T3s down to 'above' HACs, but not to the point where they oppress them by power:cost
[11:34] <jintaan> Because right now HACs are a 4 in power, T3s are an 8, Machs are 9, and the cost for them doesn't come close to matching that disparity
[11:35] <jintaan> Also, have we talked about what's needed for a boosting T3 at all?
[11:35] <eustise> no, the discussion hasn't been had
[11:36] <jintaan> Esp. given that we're going to be making all T3s fatter, but we probably want T3 boosters to keep up with nanogangs
[11:36] <jintaan> That's something to address, potentially.
[11:36] <white0rchid> I suspect the amount of T3 boosters has dropped by quite a fair margin.
[11:37] <white0rchid> Already
[11:37] <jintaan> RIP offgrid Tengu
[11:37] <eustise> given you can have a support/propmod bonus/tank/cap setup
[11:37] <jintaan> Trained it just before the patch
[11:37] <eustise> i'm not too worried
[11:38] <eustise> again, slots matter, but i'd rather see the role of t3 boosts morph into a backline support rather than take over the current efficiency on power or range on CS/BCs
[11:38] <jintaan> What about giving the T3s a reload bonus, to allow for quicker changing between boost types?
[11:38] <jintaan> To better support gangs that can't afford multiple boosters in their comp
[11:39] <jintaan> (Just random suggestions here, not too much thought behind it, as I'm not a small gang guy)
[11:40] <eustise> smallgang wise, you'd still shell out for a dedicated booster
[11:40] <titus.tallang> if you improve reload time on t3 you allow it to juggle multiple boosts on a single module
[11:40] <titus.tallang> if i remember the numbers correctly
[11:41] <titus.tallang> unless it doesn't get duration bonuses i guess (which cs gets)
[11:43] <eustise> if we're talking increased skill ceiling limit, again, i wouldn't mind having a dps-capable ship that can also boost/support/antiCD backline but without having the tank to frontline
[11:44] <eustise> the cd menace is real
[11:44] <jintaan> @titus.tallang: you can reduce the length of time their boosts apply for to mitigate that
[11:45] <jintaan> Or just have some cool micro intensive gameplay
[11:48] <caprisunkraftfoods> Utility highs are useless on cruisers
[11:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> They don't have the fitting to do anything useful with them
[11:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> So you just miss out on some well needed mids/lows
[11:49] <eustise> my mainline web/neut legion says otherwise, but that's Wh shenanigans
[11:51] <caprisunkraftfoods> I know the fit you're talking about its. vastly worse than just bring properly fit ham legions and a couple dedicated neut legions
[11:52] <eustise> we used it in coop with a bhall or two and they were pretty nifty to shutting down tripods
[11:54] <caprisunkraftfoods> Yah or you can just bring 1 or 2 dedicated neut legions that benefit from talismans and neut way more
[11:55] <eustise> either way, there is a role for utility highs on cruisers :slightly_smiling_face:
[11:56] <jintaan> T3s have pretty dope fitting right now
[11:56] <jintaan> Vs most other cruisers
[11:57] <caprisunkraftfoods> Honestly that legion and the sac with its freakishly high pg are the only cruisers that have rnougg pg
[11:58] <caprisunkraftfoods> Every other cruiser including t3s is super tight on pg
[11:58] <jintaan> I kind of like that tbh
[11:59] <jintaan> (Also, Proteus has hella grid)
[11:59] <jintaan> The real victims there are minmi cruisers though
[11:59] <jintaan> Because good luck fitting arties and autos are garbage
[12:00] <caprisunkraftfoods> Look at the muninn, vaga, ishtar, maller, cynabal, gila, naug, or shield arty loki
[12:00] <caprisunkraftfoods> At best you can put a small neut or a small smartbomb there
[12:01] <caprisunkraftfoods> Its rarely worth losing a mid or a low for
[12:34] <jintaan> Very true
[12:35] <jintaan> Ishtar is due to its fitting being compensated for by drones though
[12:50] <icarus_narcissus> I think, that maybe our best stance is to figure out what ship(s) CCP considers in a good state right now, and operate from that baseline. At fanfest, if I recall correctly, CCP stated displeasure with the current state of the Pirate Battleships. That makes the Mach meta, however difficult, something we should do our best to set aside for this discussion. That said, if CCP comes back saying they think Recons or HACs to be in a good place, our job becomes very very difficult. I look forward to the docs Fozzie alluded to yesterday, as they will be enlightening as to how best to move forward.
[13:01] <eustise> 'frigates, frigates are fine... aside from AFs'
[13:02] <eustise> but that's just being mean-spirited.. in any case, having to juggle t3c roles that they have slotted into, not necessarily because they are overpowering, although that is a strong point, but also because no other ships could have performed those roles
[13:04] <eustise> we're talking high-staying power, nullified HKs, we're talking covops capable blops support, we're talking high tier exploration and specific fleet roles
[13:04] <eustise> it's interesting that as many ships as we have, were we to completely remove t3cs, those roles would mostly just poof
[13:05] <eustise> and most of them come back to specific hard regulations, nullfication-able ships, covops capable ships, and less about raw efficiency of a role
[15:42] <ccp_fozzie> o/ folks
[15:42] <ccp_fozzie> I've created a forum thread for open discussion of T3Cs and this focus group
[15:43] <ccp_fozzie> When we make significant announcements here or pass along documents we'll make them available there as well for the rest of the community
[15:43] <caprisunkraftfoods> :thumbsup:
[15:46] <white0rchid> Sounds good
[15:47] <ccp_fozzie> Ok here's that working document I mentioned yesterday: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OrEz3NbQ7Vl6BURvnmyEqgtaTzgGXwk0Ask-Y5FFtBs/edit#gid=0
[15:48] <frsd> Will the new links/burst subsystem still only provide 1 single link?
[15:48] <ccp_fozzie> has some early proposed passes on subsystem bonuses and slots
[15:48] <ccp_fozzie> can you guys see it?
[15:48] <frsd> yes
[15:48] <ccp_fozzie> yeah the current plan is to have the same command burst bonuses as the existing warfare processor
[15:49] <ccp_fozzie> but I'd be interested in opinions on that
[15:50] <ccp_fozzie> this version of the support subsystem has both rep and link bonuses on the same sub, to allow people to combine (it has a lot of highs so losing one rep shouldn't be too bad)
[15:50] <ccp_fozzie> and it has very falloff-oriented range bonuses
[15:51] <ccp_fozzie> basically would fly like a big beefy version of the logi frigs, with low optimal but very high falloff
[15:51] <ccp_fozzie> to help differentiate from the logi cruisers
[15:56] <frsd> Combining the defensive and links subsystem might make t3s the obvious choice over (some) command ships
[15:56] <frsd> even after losing 1 extenter/trimark for a command processor
[15:57] <frsd> (atleast with the current ehp values)
[15:57] <ccp_fozzie> also has weaker and shorter range links
[15:57] <frsd> you can get very close and have half the sig and are considerably faster
[15:57] <ccp_fozzie> but yeah that's definitely something to watch out for
[15:57] <ccp_fozzie> well the sig difference won't be as big post-patch
[15:57] <ccp_fozzie> speed either
[15:58] <ccp_fozzie> and those are very adjustable to get the results we want
[15:58] <white0rchid> No cap regen on tengu, rip my regengu :stuck_out_tongue:
[15:58] <lanyaie> I'm presuming extra armor is raw armor HP?
[15:59] <ccp_fozzie> yeah just higher base values rather than a bonus that applies to plates
[15:59] <frsd> are the burst bonuses also going to stay for 3 types and 2%?
[16:00] <ccp_fozzie> @white0rchid this version has two regen bonuses and two +cap pool bonuses, the layout is definitely open to adjustment if you have suggestions
[16:00] <ccp_fozzie> @frsd in this version of the plan yes
[16:00] <ccp_fozzie> +2% to 3 types, +50% range
[16:01] <sullen> holy shit chat is in full swing today
[16:01] <sullen> got lots to catch up
[16:01] <white0rchid> I'd have to actually check numbers if I'm honest, my first thought was that the regen sub is used more than pool sub on ships like the tengu, when you go for 2b+ fits you'd usually end up with a battery and local rep
[16:02] <sturm_gewehr> %wise about what rough amount did you want to reduce agility, increase sig, decrease speed and increase mass
[16:03] <white0rchid> I'd also suspect it will hit the neut legion quite hard
[16:03] <white0rchid> As before you could fit parasitic electronics and cap regen engineering
[16:03] <white0rchid> whereas the core subs, the cap pool sub and the neut sub are now separate
[16:04] <white0rchid> Will check the numbers on a few 'core' fits that people use nowadays, and see how it compares, if I get the time tonight
[16:04] <ccp_fozzie> Tengu Augmented Capacitor 51.46%
[16:04] <ccp_fozzie> Tengu Capacitor Regen Matrix 41.52%
[16:04] <ccp_fozzie> That's the most recent breakdown of popularity
[16:04] <ccp_fozzie> Power core and Coolant are 5.8 and 1.2% respectively
[16:05] <ccp_fozzie> so pretty close all things considered
[16:05] <ccp_fozzie> We could easily swap any of those +cap or +regen bonuses around to the other one if we feel the ship needs it
[16:06] <white0rchid> Checking my fits, the augmented is probably used on more pve fits
[16:06] <white0rchid> And the cap regen on pvp
[16:06] <white0rchid> Looking over my DED/Regengu fits I have
[16:06] <sturm_gewehr> Regen was popular because it gives great pg.
[16:07] <ccp_fozzie> @sturm_gewehr don't have numbers there yet
[16:07] <sullen> @ccp_fozzie i approve of the nullification modifications
[16:07] <sullen> it makes it so taht a skilled decloak/tackler has a chance
[16:07] <white0rchid> Which makes sense - because people had to have PG to fit batteries I suspect.
[16:08] <sturm_gewehr> Also 100mn.
[16:08] <white0rchid> Yes, I think being nullified should probably give lower lock range
[16:08] <white0rchid> And the reduced agility means more chance of being caught in @asher_elias gatecamps :joy:
[16:08] <titus.tallang> which of the bonuses on cloak sub are per level, @ccp_fozzie
[16:09] <titus.tallang> probe strength, tractor beam, local tank?
[16:09] <white0rchid> So I suspect that will cover the second point
[16:09] <white0rchid> That asher made
[16:09] <ccp_fozzie> yup @titus.tallang
[16:09] <titus.tallang> k
[16:09] <ccp_fozzie> basically this version just keeps those bonuses the same but condenses them all to one sub
[16:09] <sturm_gewehr> @ccp_fozzie could you ballpark the slight changes for me? Then maybe we can discuss if we think that it is a good place to start or if we think it is off the mark.
[16:10] <white0rchid> So that's 7.5% per level on local tank
[16:10] <white0rchid> For the cloaky sub
[16:10] <titus.tallang> would need a modified pyfa to check, but feels like neut legion cap stability will be hard to get
[16:10] <titus.tallang> with the loss of recharge sub
[16:10] <white0rchid> Yeah that's what I think @titus.tallang
[16:10] <white0rchid> Mentioned above
[16:10] <ccp_fozzie> @sturm_gewehr I'll do some napkin math later today and get back to you asap
[16:11] <white0rchid> I mean it was around 1b+ anyway to get it stable right?
[16:11] <sturm_gewehr> Thank you, will help us understand the full picture better.
[16:11] <white0rchid> Or could you do it for about 850ish
[16:11] <titus.tallang> 6 neut was pretty easy to get stable
[16:12] <white0rchid> Back onto the previous point, that takes local tank from 50% to 37.5% on the hunter tengu
[16:12] <sturm_gewehr> What are the rigs on the current neut legion fits that you use?
[16:12] <titus.tallang> lemme log onto eve and check i don't have it in pyfa apparently
[16:12] <white0rchid> For HK proteus we might see some issue, people use the tengus because XLASB uses no cap, or goes bling regen fit. But prots are usually buffer fit.
[16:13] <white0rchid> Because armor ancils use cap which is something you don't often have ample of when tackling and neuting something yourself
[16:13] <sturm_gewehr> @ccp_fozzie also, for those slight changes, are you thinking they will be the same % amount for all hulls or different for each one?
[16:14] <ccp_fozzie> probably at least slightly different
[16:14] <titus.tallang> ```[Legion, Legion]
[16:14] <titus.tallang> 1600mm Rolled Tungsten Compact Plates
[16:14] <titus.tallang> Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating
[16:14] <titus.tallang> Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating
[16:14] <titus.tallang> Imperial Navy Capacitor Power Relay
[16:14] <titus.tallang> Corpum B-Type Energized Thermal Membrane
[16:14] <titus.tallang> Damage Control II
[16:14] <titus.tallang> Gistum C-Type 10MN Afterburner
[16:14] <titus.tallang> Imperial Navy Cap Recharger
[16:14] <titus.tallang> Imperial Navy Cap Recharger
[16:14] <titus.tallang> F-90 Compact Sensor Booster
[16:14] <titus.tallang> Medium Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer
[16:14] <titus.tallang> Medium Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer
[16:14] <titus.tallang> Medium Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Medium Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Medium Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Medium Gremlin Compact Energy Neutralizer
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Medium Anti-EM Pump II
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Legion Electronics - Energy Parasitic Complex
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Legion Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Legion Offensive - Drone Synthesis Projector
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Legion Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Hobgoblin II x4
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Vespa EC-600 x10
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Hammerhead II x4
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Sisters Core Scanner Probe x8
[16:15] <titus.tallang> ECCM Script x1
[16:15] <titus.tallang> Nanite Repair Paste x181
[16:15] <titus.tallang> ```
[16:15] <titus.tallang> that's the cheap one i have lying around
[16:15] <titus.tallang> costs about 670m, could go cheaper, all of the bling is in the lows
[16:15] <white0rchid> Almost the same as mine
[16:15] <white0rchid> Which, is an old fit from a few years ago admittedly
[16:16] <white0rchid> mine has 3 trimarks and replaces the DC with an EM
[16:16] <sturm_gewehr> Would be interesting to see how many rig slots.could be changed for cap stability.
[16:16] <sturm_gewehr> Egress, semiconductor or CCC.
[16:20] <eustise> btw, @ nullification system, is 'lower agility' a buff or a penalty, given it currently has 5% increased agility per level
[16:21] <eustise> semantics
[16:21] <titus.tallang> penalty
[16:21] <titus.tallang> higher agility <-> lower inertia modifier
[16:21] <ccp_fozzie> penalty
[16:22] <ccp_fozzie> yeah wording is always hard with those
[16:22] <eustise> yeah, that's why i asked :slightly_smiling_face: but kay
[16:23] <white0rchid> So it's going from having a bonus to agility to having a penality to agility?
[16:23] <eustise> from a stacking buff to a flat penalty i'm expecting
[16:23] <ccp_fozzie> right now it has lower base agility and a bonus that helps get it back to normal
[16:23] <ccp_fozzie> which is confusing
[16:23] <titus.tallang> so the per-level bonus is going away, and the reduced agility is being made explicit as a listed penalty
[16:24] <titus.tallang> how much is the actual agility change compared to now
[16:24] <ccp_fozzie> if you are looking for agility right now, avoid one of the subsystems with the agility bonus :slightly_smiling_face:
[16:24] <ccp_fozzie> no explicit listed penalty
[16:24] <eustise> just the raw stat is weaker
[16:24] <ccp_fozzie> stuff in that lower row is just slots and notable relative differences in base stats
[16:25] <eustise> well, slotwise, the explo proteus luxurymobile remains the same
[16:26] <eustise> are there any changes to cargo size?
[16:26] <sturm_gewehr> Does the proteus have a base drone bandwith or is it assigned by the offensive sub?
[16:27] <eustise> no base done bandwidth
[16:28] <frsd> so how do you feel about roaming around in 800 dps cloaky nullified ham tengus?
[16:28] <sturm_gewehr> What's the range on the hams?
[16:28] <frsd> 30-40 depending on faction/t2 and you can easily fit a MGC
[16:29] <eustise> that dps is pure glass
[16:29] <frsd> basically a glorified stratios imo
[16:29] <frsd> just even harder if not impossible to catch
[16:29] <titus.tallang> in that case, how do you feel about making significant penalties apparent in the description, @ccp_fozzie?
[16:29] <titus.tallang> as opposed to only being buried somewhere in the attributes list
[16:29] <eustise> it's hard to convey
[16:29] <titus.tallang> might help decision clarity
[16:30] <titus.tallang> not necessarily - give it similar agility to the other subs, then list "-x% agility" in the traits
[16:30] <titus.tallang> it ends up with the same agility as before, just with it being explicit that it's less agile than the others
[16:30] <sturm_gewehr> @ccp_fozzie why 100mbit on the drone sub for the proteus?
[16:30] <titus.tallang> say, if every sub has 100 agility and inull has 75, then give them all 100 agility and "-25% agility" on the inull as a trait
[16:31] <titus.tallang> result is the same, clarity is better
[16:31] <eustise> well, you get one with -10% agility, say, one with +5% agility per level, and one with no agility mentions
[16:32] <ccp_fozzie> @sturm_gewehr largely because of a concern that it would be too strong with 125
[16:33] <eustise> hmh, this is interesting, i'll have -1 low, sure, and literally 10% extra drone damage, 5% extra drone tracking, as well as medium hybrid turret bonuses, on my explo boat
[16:34] <eustise> i mean, it can mess with strats now and completely obliterate asteros
[16:34] <sturm_gewehr> You could adjust the other bonuses. The tracking bonus is largely wasted and thematically it seems inappropriate for the tech 3 version of challenge drone design can't fit 125mbit.
[16:34] <ccp_fozzie> remember t3 isn't supposed to be the best at every specific thing
[16:35] <sturm_gewehr> Which is where possibly adjusting the other bonuses could be appropriate to reduce power level.
[16:35] <sturm_gewehr> Like less hp/damage bonus.
[16:36] <sturm_gewehr> Are you more worried about sentry or mobile drones?
[16:36] <sturm_gewehr> With the 125mbit?
[16:36] <ccp_fozzie> bit of both
[16:37] <ccp_fozzie> drone ship power level has a tendency to sneak up on you :slightly_smiling_face:
[16:38] <ccp_fozzie> and as a T3 it doesn't need to be the best at specific aspects, because it has a greater breadth of bonuses
[16:38] <ccp_fozzie> don't want it to feel like a straight upgrade "better Ishtar" or "better VNI" or "better Eos"
[16:38] <sturm_gewehr> Fair enough.
[16:39] <exooki> im not able to compare all of these to current values, but overall it looks like tanks will be lower, and well need active hardeners to bridge the gap. I reading things right?
[16:39] <ccp_fozzie> the buffer subsystem has a specific active hardener bonus, but otherwise it doesn't nessesarily push any harder towards active than before
[16:40] <caprisunkraftfoods> @ccp_fozzie a big part of the tengu sub popularity is that its pretty much completely dictated by the weapon system
[16:40] <sturm_gewehr> Any chance you would consider swapping rof missile bonus on the legion for missile damage?
[16:40] <eustise> cloaky nullified will drop the 7.5% armor hp bonus, gaining 7.5% rep bonus, sure, but how will the general on-system armor hp go for most of the subs?
[16:40] <caprisunkraftfoods> like I wouldn't read too much into that
[16:41] <ccp_fozzie> @caprisunkraftfoods yup excellent point
[16:41] <caprisunkraftfoods> you do cap resevoir if you're doing missiles for the 6th launcher, you do power core if you do want the PG to fit a 6th railgun, and you fit cap regen in literally any other situation
[16:41] <caprisunkraftfoods> I bet if you correlated that engineering subs with the high slot weapons fitted it'd agree
[16:42] <ccp_fozzie> @eustise tank will be going down pretty much across the board
[16:43] <exooki> all these bonuses are per level right?
[16:43] <caprisunkraftfoods> also Fozzie I take it that the goal here is a only a small nerf to EHP, but a significant nerf to resist profiles right?
[16:43] <ccp_fozzie> with a few exceptions like some stuff in the cloaking sub yes @exooki
[16:43] <caprisunkraftfoods> running off our conversation yesterday
[16:43] <ccp_fozzie> small/moderate ehp
[16:44] <ccp_fozzie> yup
[16:44] <mawderator> "Offensive subsystem bonuses are very likely too good in this draft"
[16:44] <mawderator> without having had the benefit of looking into fits using modified pyfa files
[16:45] <mawderator> is there anything in particular that stands out as possibly being too powerful
[16:45] <sturm_gewehr> ^this
[16:45] <eustise> so basically -20% therm, -15% kin, and the same explosive 50% for the proteus, say?
[16:45] <caprisunkraftfoods> I can modify pyfa now but like we don't have base stats to work with
[16:45] <eustise> if we're comparing it to the Hecate
[16:45] <caprisunkraftfoods> so all the EHP would be comically shit
[16:45] <caprisunkraftfoods> and the fitting would be wayyy off
[16:46] <exooki> @caprisunkraftfoods is it easy to modify pyfa with draft stats?
[16:46] <caprisunkraftfoods> uh
[16:46] <caprisunkraftfoods> its not difficult its just a lot of effort
[16:47] <caprisunkraftfoods> it is funny watching people freak out in various channels already though :stuck_out_tongue:
[16:47] <rowells> how do the heat bonuses work out with the standard EWAR bonus?
[16:48] <ccp_fozzie> says right at the top that if they hurt themselves it's not my fault
[16:48] <caprisunkraftfoods> it just seems premature
[16:48] <caprisunkraftfoods> I've been starting at this sheet for 20 minutes and have barely digested it
[16:48] <caprisunkraftfoods> idk how anyone could already have fully formed views about this stuff
[16:48] <eustise> a lot of the deets are still in the raw module stats themselves
[16:49] <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
[16:49] <ccp_fozzie> @rowells can you clarify the question?
[16:50] <rowells> disregard, im gonna go make sure im fully awake first before i try to ask
[16:51] <sturm_gewehr> Have we talked about lowslots on web loki yet?
[16:52] <eustise> well, without talking to tank per se, since i don't know exactly how much ehp i'll have to work with, right now cloaky nullified fits just seem a lot stronger damage wise, if more vulnerable due to - agility and -raw ehp(sig/resists)
[16:52] <rowells> looks like 5 low max
[16:52] <sturm_gewehr> @ccp_fozzie for the loki and prot turret subs, that really depends a lot on stats.
[16:52] <sturm_gewehr> Exactly.
[16:52] <sturm_gewehr> 5 lowslots should have a sever impact on the armor loki
[16:52] <caprisunkraftfoods> fozzie I know it's racially consistent, but at least in a WH armor setup sacrificing missile damage for drone damage is a big loss. The primary reason HK at least is flying HAM Legions is that small/medium drones don't really "count" for DPS since they're so easy to smart bomb off, and once you discount the drone damage for that reason they do vastly more damage than any other viable options
[16:53] <caprisunkraftfoods> like secondary drone bonuses are nice
[16:53] <exooki> ( capri means Hard knocks, not hunter killer here)
[16:54] <sturm_gewehr> For the legion, why not sentries if smartbombs are a concern?
[16:54] <exooki> sentries dont work well in close range armor brawls
[16:54] <caprisunkraftfoods> but that's the reason you don't really small/medium drones used as a primary weapon system outside of a facwar environment
[16:54] <exooki> youd need to land at range, drop them in, and theyd still be easy for 1-2 ships to pick off quickly
[16:54] <sturm_gewehr> Close range with webs/paints and them being just outside the brawl should be fine?
[16:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> yeah
[16:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> wormhole brawls don't really work like that sturm
[16:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> the key thing is any big fight comes down to fighting over hole control
[16:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> which means brawling at near zero on a wormhole
[16:55] <sturm_gewehr> I think 5 launchers may be a bit problematic for the legion sub.
[16:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> c
[16:56] <sturm_gewehr> Bonus seems okay with 6 launchers.
[16:56] <exooki> @ccp_fozzie do we have a rough idea of the industry/ production changes?
[16:56] <exooki> ( not to change the subject, but more things I can throw out for feedback )
[16:58] <icarus_narcissus> @exooki you beat me to it while I was catching up
[16:59] <ccp_fozzie> still got a bit more work to do before talking about production changes
[17:00] <eustise> so for the boost changes, prot/legion have the same stats for their modules, tengu gets the shield flavor of them, and loki outright ignores any range bonuses and just gets raw remote rep power for both the armor and the shield?
[17:01] <ccp_fozzie> loki gets all the bonuses from the other ones, but writing them all out would take too much space in a spreadsheet cell
[17:01] <rowells> has putting any secondary ewar (paints/damps/etc) bonuses on the ewar subs been considered?
[17:02] <eustise> so basically 'please fly loki gais, srsly'... kay :stuck_out_tongue:
[17:03] <icarus_narcissus> From what I see, the hunter-killer fits have the potential to be largely intact, and a new role of covert logistics (previously held by twelve-figure ships) has a potential to emerge
[17:03] <ccp_fozzie> basically the loki swings both ways
[17:03] <rowells> ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
[17:04] <icarus_narcissus> how much the cloak penalizes tank is going to be the biggest challenge for the hunter-killer
[17:04] <ccp_fozzie> @rowells not something I've put much investigation into. Would be interested to hear arguments for it but I'm not sure they really need it
[17:04] <rowells> i think ill make a short slpurb after this joe then
[17:05] <icarus_narcissus> What is the reasoning behind only the proteus and tengu hetting the overheat bonus on their prop systems?
[17:06] <icarus_narcissus> A real flavor appeared to be emerging across the board until then
[17:06] <rowells> probably in exchange for the sig blom
[17:07] <ccp_fozzie> partly was concerned about too many ships getting the combo of AB speed and heat bonus
[17:07] <rowells> although it benefits AB as well on those two
[17:07] <eustise> for HK's, you'll end up with a bonused 7.5% local rep, but lose the resistences and the hp bonus
[17:08] <eustise> so technically you'll just end up with, if the 7.5% is per level, with very roughly 15% extra local rep (due to ressists going down) compared to what you'd get now, at possibly -30-40% of the total hp
[17:09] <icarus_narcissus> Not sure why, but I do feel like the Proteus is getting the short end of the Prop Mod stick
[17:09] <caprisunkraftfoods> it always has tbf
[17:10] <eustise> @ccp_fozzie i see the kinetic locks are still in place for missiles?
[17:11] <caprisunkraftfoods> @ccp_fozzie can you confirm that remote rep fall off bonus is per level?
[17:11] <ccp_fozzie> yup
[17:11] <ccp_fozzie> oh wait let me double check
[17:11] <sturm_gewehr> For expanding design space and secondary ewar bonuses, what about adding something like an ev drone bonus to the legion?
[17:12] <eustise> 1300% per level.. kek no
[17:12] <rowells> id buy that for a dollar
[17:12] <eustise> what is this, diablo 3 speed stacking
[17:12] <caprisunkraftfoods> yeah was kinda like :thinking_face:
[17:12] <ccp_fozzie> sorry no those are role bonuses
[17:12] <ccp_fozzie> good catch :slightly_smiling_face:
[17:12] <caprisunkraftfoods> yeah like
[17:12] <caprisunkraftfoods> 17km fall off would = 1200 km at 5 lmao
[17:13] <rowells> so ends up being about half the range bonus logi gets?
[17:13] <eustise> ^the real reason grids were enhanced
[17:13] <icarus_narcissus> CCP is like "we needed this new grid size to contain the new tech 3 logi cruisers" :stuck_out_tongue:
[17:13] <caprisunkraftfoods> "its okay i'll just leave my reps on the citadel"
[17:14] <caprisunkraftfoods> hey fozzie on that note, I know it's totally off topic, are you happy with the strategy that a lot of people have been using of leaving a carrier/super on citadel then burning their drones 1000km+ to a gate/structure/etc
[17:14] <caprisunkraftfoods> I take it that was largely an intentional thing
[17:16] <ccp_fozzie> ok that should be clearer now hopefully
[17:17] <eustise> so i'm gonna push again, tengu kinetic locks? is that still a mechanic for caldari ships that's wanted going forward?
[17:17] <ccp_fozzie> For some Caldari ships, yes
[17:18] <eustise> shrug, strategic cruisers, the adaptible ones, seem the kind that'd trade the 5% damage bonus per level to kinetic to 2% bonus per all missile damages
[17:18] <eustise> or just get a reload time buff to quick-swap in combat
[17:22] <sullen> i kinda think it needs to have kinetic locking slightly considering the other races are fairly locked in their damage profiles
[17:23] <icarus_narcissus> Reload time buff increases DPS a bit and gives flexibility, I'd put my voice in for that over kinetic lock. Unless there is a plan for locking lokis into fusion and gallente into thermal drones (this is a joke, please do not do this)
[17:23] <eustise> they're still locked in two, out of which projectiles can wibble wobble
[17:23] <sturm_gewehr> Missile subs on legion and loki aren't locked.
[17:24] <eustise> and drones dgaf
[17:24] <sullen> i mean
[17:24] <sullen> minmatar are already somewhat kinetic lock as that's the secondary for almost all their rounds isn't it?
[17:24] <sullen> eve em doesn't do all em
[17:24] <frsd> 5 low slot armor webbing loki, ontop of ehp reduction and sig increase ppl will just use huginns
[17:25] <rowells> the other subs are also missing a turret, the tengu will outdps them regardless
[17:25] <sturm_gewehr> I like the jackdaw reload and damage flexibility a lot. It adds more depth to decision-making.
[17:25] <eustise> given the loki sub stats, i have a feeling that while the prot/legion will have a focus on the raw stats in armor, and tengu in shields, loki may just have mediocre hp in both armor and shields
[17:26] <icarus_narcissus> @exooki has probably been waiting for this... _from a lore perspective_ if the Tengu was made by Lai Dai exclusively, a kinetic lock would make sense. The Tengu is meant to be a flexible ship designed for adaptability, a kinetic lock doesn't make as much sense there.
[17:26] <eustise> lore is subservient to gameplay
[17:27] <icarus_narcissus> above is my game play idea as to why there shouldn't be a kinetic lock. the lore was meant to add flavor :wink:
[17:28] <eustise> @sturm_gewehr i agree, that's why i also like the jackdaw, and what i had hoped would transfer over to the tengu postbalance
[17:29] <caprisunkraftfoods> @ccp_fozzie is there going to be any activation bonus on the logistics subs?
[17:36] <rowells> does it need it?
[17:38] <ccp_fozzie> yeah it almost definitely will get some @caprisunkraftfoods
[17:38] <icarus_narcissus> Without the core capacitor numbers, I can't say for sure, but a logistics ship lacking them will be noticed
[17:38] <ccp_fozzie> so far I've mostly focused my logi bonus time on looking at range and strength, need to do a pass on cap
[17:38] <jintaan> @ccp_fozzie sorry if it's been asked already, but can we get a ballpark on the sig increase? 5%/10%/20%?
[17:40] <jintaan> It's pretty important when considering what EHP to ballpark for when comparing the T3 to different roles
[17:40] <ccp_fozzie> probably in the ballpark of +20%
[17:40] <ccp_fozzie> but still early
[17:41] <noobman> :S the HAM legion offensive sub
[17:41] <noobman> -1 launcher no missile damage bonus
[17:41] <eustise> so, roughly, we'll see 30-40% less ehp just off the sig and resistences
[17:41] <eustise> that's discounting on-sub armor/shield amounts
[17:42] <ccp_fozzie> well sig doesn't impact ehp, although it does change survivability
[17:43] <noobman> Loki is looking like a better missile boat than the legion for wormholes
[17:43] <caprisunkraftfoods> yeah
[17:43] <eustise> we still need to see the mass changes to see if we even want t3cs
[17:44] <caprisunkraftfoods> Unless they're making them >50m I doubt that'll be an issue
[17:45] <noobman> the "CORE" Sub system is gonna be the biggest thing too look at for wormhole T3Cs fits
[17:46] <sturm_gewehr> Gaining 20% sig in addition to mass gain, speed loss, agility loss and ehp loss could be a really heavy nerf when totalled...
[17:46] <noobman> better cap and fitting room and no sensor strength or sensor strength
[17:48] <noobman> (no links) 35.7 ->18 on sensor strength for classic ham legion fit
[17:48] <noobman> ECM is gonna be big
[17:50] <ccp_fozzie> It's a bit hidden in the slot numbers spread across subs, but worth noting that this draft adds one extra total slot per ship
[17:51] <noobman> everyone getting a utility high
[17:51] <ccp_fozzie> and allows 8 low legion/proteus fits and 8 midtengu/loki fits
[17:51] <rowells> :eggplant:
[17:51] <rowells> whew im gonna need a minute
[17:52] <frsd> tengu is the only one where the 8 mids is limited to the active sub though
[17:52] <rowells> and the cloak one
[17:53] <frsd> loki can do 8mid cloak
[17:53] <ccp_fozzie> yeah the 8 mid setups are a bit trickier than the 8 low setups
[17:54] <ccp_fozzie> the loki actually only hits 8 with the support offensive system
[17:54] <ccp_fozzie> easy for it to hit 7 mids though
[17:54] <noobman> @ccp_fozzie an armor tanked Web loki can only have 5 lows now. down from 6
[17:54] <ccp_fozzie> in the current design yup
[17:55] <ccp_fozzie> there's always the option of switching the web sub to 2/2, but 1/3 opens up a lot of shield web loki options
[17:55] <rowells> for now, theres no intention of salvaging the sig radius bonus for the loki, is there?
[17:55] <ccp_fozzie> which at least shakes things up and helps address the concerns about armor lokis feeling oppressive
[17:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> I think that needs to be kept firmly on the table
[17:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> shield lokis are already good as is
[17:56] <caprisunkraftfoods> people just don't fly them because they're dumb
[17:56] <ccp_fozzie> yeah I'm definitely open to 2/2 for the web sub
[17:56] <frsd> the current shield loki seems to be a beefed muninn
[17:56] <frsd> idk if its viable though
[17:57] <noobman> you can get a 7 low armor loki but no web sub
[17:57] <noobman> so you'd wanna have a mix of DPS tanky armor lokis and a squishy-er web armor loki
[17:58] <noobman> :thinking_face:
[17:58] <titus.tallang> hide the squishy loki in your tanky loki fleet?
[17:58] <frsd> only if you dont fit damage mods
[17:58] <frsd> fit 2 damage mods and you entire fleet gets to be squishy :smile:
[17:58] <sturm_gewehr> Is anyone working on a list of slot layouts for different sub combinations?
[17:59] <titus.tallang> i can whip something up
[17:59] <titus.tallang> gimme a few minutes
[18:00] <rowells> does anyone else feel like the base speed/agility subs are kind of lackluster?
[18:00] <rowells> well, at least for legion/loki
[18:01] <rowells> in comparison to their own prop sub options
[18:02] <sturm_gewehr> I would have to see stats for the rest of the ship to have a solid opinion on it.
[18:02] <noobman> im just staring at http://i.imgur.com/VbuJZDX.png
[18:03] <noobman> @ccp_fozzie what is the drone bay size in m3?
[18:03] <ccp_fozzie> haven't written anything down for that yet, but likely fairly large as is the amarr way
[18:04] <ccp_fozzie> maybe 150-200
[18:07] <noobman> i feel like the missile legion getting drone bonus just makes its basically the same as the sacrilege and damnation. making them all feel like the same exact ship.
[18:07] <titus.tallang> ^
[18:08] <noobman> sacrilege -> legion -> damnation :: low missile dps and can use medium drones
[18:09] <titus.tallang> in a similar vein, why does the drone proteus have a hybrid bonus
[18:09] <titus.tallang> it feels out of place
[18:09] <eustise> it is just tracking, not damage per se,
[18:09] <icarus_narcissus> most gallente drones hips doo
[18:15] <titus.tallang> just noticed, no cpu bonus listed on the loki core sub, @ccp_fozzie
[18:15] <titus.tallang> intended?
[18:15] <icarus_narcissus> given it is missing from the Legion as well, I'd imagine so
[18:15] <rowells> did we already ask if the mass on the covert sub is going to impact blopsing heavily?
[18:21] <eustise> is my math off, or does an active propmod missile tengu either gets a 2 6 7 or a 3 5 7 config
[18:21] <eustise> either way, it'll cut them out of the high end pve
[18:23] <titus.tallang> 7h, 8m, 2l or 7h, 7m, 3l
[18:25] <titus.tallang> @titus.tallang uploaded a file: Slot layout dump: Legion https://ccpfocusgroups.slack.com/files/titus.tallang/F5KTZP0CT/slot_layout_dump__legion.txt
[18:25] <titus.tallang> @titus.tallang uploaded a file: Slot layout dump: Proteus https://ccpfocusgroups.slack.com/files/titus.tallang/F5L3JGUFP/slot_layout_dump__proteus.txt
[18:25] <titus.tallang> @titus.tallang uploaded a file: Slot layout dump: Tengu https://ccpfocusgroups.slack.com/files/titus.tallang/F5KU03K4K/slot_layout_dump__tengu.txt
[18:25] <eustise> 1 low 3 mids from the def, 2 lows, 2 mids from the core, 7 highs from the offensive, and 2 mids from the prop, that's 3 lows, the minimum for dps, 7 mids, right, and 7 highs
[18:25] <sturm_gewehr> Thanks @titus.tallang
[18:25] <titus.tallang> @titus.tallang uploaded a file: Slot layout dump: Loki https://ccpfocusgroups.slack.com/files/titus.tallang/F5L0RGQD8/slot_layout_dump__loki.txt
[18:26] <titus.tallang> don't trust it blindly i might've typod somewhere when copying the data
[18:28] <eustise> yeah, no, goodbye 10/10's in t3cs, which eh, is somewhat expected
[18:28] <sturm_gewehr> Thoughts on utility highslot on tengu missile sub? I think it would be more useful as a lowslot...
[18:28] <exooki> i expect well see substantial PVE changes this year too
[18:29] <eustise> less changes, just rattlesnakes everywhere
[18:29] <exooki> for wormholes, possibly
[18:29] <exooki> but K space is getting all new pve content
[18:29] <exooki> almost every anom, mission etc is gettng rewritten
[18:29] <eustise> we'll burn that bridge when we get to it
[18:30] <exooki> @titus.tallang that looks pretty solid, coupled with some stats and we have an idea where we are going
[18:30] <eustise> for the mo, active-tanked t3c pve will become unfeasible
[18:30] <asher_elias> @jintaan to address something you said earlier, non blinged armour lokis can get 173k EHP no problem https://vgy.me/E01s79.png
[18:30] <eustise> or more or less indistinguishable from what you'd do in a HAC anyway
[18:30] <asher_elias> no links
[18:31] <asher_elias> obviously anything in a fleet situation is going to be x-typed, imp navy enams, and linked
[18:31] <jintaan> @asher_elias my bad, was running from memory
[18:31] <asher_elias> yeah, it's just a lot of base EHP to start with before you work in pimping them
[18:31] <jintaan> Agreed
[18:32] <asher_elias> @ccp_fozzie I see you've got a lot of overheat bonuses for tank, how do you think that will play out in the world where so many big fights are taking place on a void bomb shooter? Will passive fits be tanky enough to fleet fight?
[18:33] <ccp_fozzie> the hardener heat bonuses are definitely intended to be the lesser partner of the two bonuses on those subs
[18:33] <white0rchid> I've had someone inquire - will those overheat bonuses do funky things in red giants with resists?
[18:34] <titus.tallang> look low enough at a glance
[18:34] <titus.tallang> let me check
[18:34] <ccp_fozzie> they're not strong enough to cause the same problem you can run into with a faction fit DST
[18:34] <titus.tallang> pith x hardeners are 64% base
[18:34] <white0rchid> Gotcha, ok
[18:35] <titus.tallang> heat is 20% effectiveness, in a RG that's 40% effectiveness
[18:35] <titus.tallang> x-types need 56.25% effectiveness to go over
[18:36] <titus.tallang> so as long as we keep our bonuses at or below 40% we're safe
[18:37] <asher_elias> @ccp_fozzie am I reading the loki web bonuses right, unheated they will have lesser range than currently but with heat the range will be the same as a current heated loki web?
[18:37] <ccp_fozzie> yup
[18:37] <asher_elias> thanks
[18:38] <white0rchid> Do you envision them still staying in their role as a fleet webber or would you like people to explore other options?
[18:38] <ccp_fozzie> this version of the proteus bonus is similar (~8% lower unheated and ~3% higher heated range than before in that case)
[18:39] <asher_elias> I just want to be sure, we can share this info with interested people since it's all getting log dumped, etc, right?
[18:39] <white0rchid> I'm p sure we can yeah
[18:39] <ccp_fozzie> ideally it would at least feel like there are a few distinct options for webbing
[18:39] <ccp_fozzie> yeah I posted this sheet on the forums as well @asher_elias
[18:40] <asher_elias> ok thanks, Just want to make sure I don't mess anything up
[18:40] <asher_elias> at the moment web lokis really are the only option because they exceed all other options so much
[18:41] <asher_elias> and with people bringing 10-15 of them x-typed/slaved it's not usually viable to rid yourself of them, so you bring doctrines that can punch through main DPS
[18:41] <white0rchid> In tank yes
[18:41] <white0rchid> But web range is much worse than recons is it not?
[18:41] <asher_elias> huggins web further
[18:41] <asher_elias> but huginns die
[18:41] <white0rchid> Exactly
[18:41] <white0rchid> That's my point here though
[18:42] <white0rchid> If the loki webs are hit hard enough, people just won't use webs, because they'll die
[18:42] <asher_elias> we only use huginns on our maelstrom doctrine for cost reasons, we don't care if some new FC loses a maelstrom fleet and a bunch of huginns, but on any serious doctrine we only use lokis because they generally don't die
[18:42] <white0rchid> And that will leave us with one less support role for large fleets, no?
[18:42] <asher_elias> I disagree with that, before the machariel meta you had thinks like megas and napocs and you would shoot the logi, first one to lose his logi went home. Does that mean people didn't bring logi? No, you just did your best to protect it
[18:43] <eustise> @ccp_fozzie how much are we expecting the lock range to drop with the nullification system?
[18:43] <icarus_narcissus> @ccp_fozzie Sorry to continue the chaotic nature of the conversation, but I feel that the majority of the focus group is here now. On Sunday you said you'd discuss CCP's reasoning for keeping the SP loss mechanic once we were here. When you have a chance, could you elaborate on that.
[18:44] <titus.tallang> btw @ccp_snowedin can you teach the bot to set shared snippets to public?
[18:44] <titus.tallang> right now it says "uploaded a file: " but you can't access the file unless you're logged in
[18:45] <rhiload> @asher_elias foxcats are the best doctrine
[18:45] <asher_elias> was that abbadons?
[18:45] <rhiload> the best memories came from foxcats
[18:45] <rhiload> foxcats are napocs
[18:46] <asher_elias> napocs were very fun I agree
[18:46] <rhiload> or were rather, nobody uses them anymore :d
[18:46] <asher_elias> why would you when you can use a machariel
[18:46] <asher_elias> all GSF doctrine discussions start "how would this compete against machariels?" and 98% of them get immediately dumpstered because of that question
[18:46] <rhiload> :sad times:
[18:47] <asher_elias> machs have aborted more doctrines than an alley-way doctor
[18:47] <asher_elias> (looking forward to the public log dump)
[18:47] <icarus_narcissus> @asher_elias that is an issue with the Machariel, as I said earlier, we really do need to set that aside for this discussion
[18:47] <titus.tallang> do doctrines get universal healthcare for those abortions?
[18:47] <titus.tallang> (hi, reddit)
[18:48] <ccp_fozzie> Sure @icarus_narcissus
[18:48] <ccp_fozzie> There's a few reasons we're generally happy with the mechanic.
[18:50] <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.
[18:51] <titus.tallang> the conceptual problem i see with that is that this is unique compared to other costs in that it's triggered when you lose it, not when you buy it
[18:51] <slackbot> http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/8-17-2015/KAJCag.gif
[18:51] <titus.tallang> it's not an up-front investment
[18:52] <titus.tallang> :thinking_face: ok who let people setup custom slackbot responses
[18:52] <ccp_fozzie> Another is that SP sinks are something we consider valuable for a game like EVE. This was true before injectors and continues to be true after them. SP is our main form of progression and it's always a concern from our side that we won't be able to keep up with providing new things for people to do with it as fast as they gain it. Having a cost like this helps provide an outlet for SP from the entire ecosystem.
[18:52] <icarus_narcissus> The problem is, since the introduction of the SP Injector, all we've done is, for the higher SP players who can afford it add a cost of 2 Skill Injectors. For those who can't, it is a massive deterrent to using them in the first place.
[18:53] <titus.tallang> either way, it makes the sp loss not feel like a "price" or an "investment", where you pay (negative feedback) then get to do stuff (positive feedback), but like a punishment - you get to do stuff (positive feedback) but then you are hit with the downside for doing stuff (negative feedback)
[18:53] <titus.tallang> and, yes, SP sinks were valuable before injectors existed
[18:53] <ccp_fozzie> the uniqueness of up-front costs and death costs is one of the things that sets the ships apart, we consider that a positive
[18:54] <ccp_fozzie> We are 100% fine if people choose not to use the ships because they prefer not to pay that cost. That cost decision is part of the balance between any given ship classes
[18:54] <asher_elias> people were flying t3cs well before skill injectors, I remember when reavers fought darkness a bunch in querious in 2015 one of our guys "Azure and Argent" set up a spreadsheet and tracked who lost t3s and we started targeting preferentially the people who had lost the most SP so they felt max pain. It's not something you can do with any other ship class.
[18:54] <ccp_fozzie> unless we get to the point where almost 0 people are willing to pay that cost, in which case we'd conclude it's too high :slightly_smiling_face:
[18:54] <sullen> @icarus_narcissus are you serious with the sp loss?
[18:55] <sullen> honestly i wish there was sp loss for the t3d's
[18:55] <asher_elias> those are too disposable
[18:55] <sullen> it's one of the only aspects that keeps the t3c's from being the ONLY choise
[18:55] <sullen> people didn't want sp loss for the t3d's and now look at them
[18:56] <sullen> they're the spinning example of what should have been learned for a long time. isk cost is not a form of balance. at all
[18:56] <ccp_fozzie> all costs are a form of balance
[18:56] <asher_elias> but t3ds aren't super unbalanced anymore
[18:56] <sullen> the only way to make isk costs balance is hard coding that makes it so that the cost of one is dramatically over the benefit
[18:56] <sullen> and it will never drop below that
[18:57] <sullen> i look at the faction fighters for example
[18:57] <ccp_fozzie> that whole "cost is not a balancing factor" thing came from a combination of overcompensating from previous mistakes and hyperbole for an audience
[18:57] <sullen> those are insainly priced for the beneift
[18:57] <sullen> but rightly so
[18:57] <ccp_fozzie> cost is a balancing factor, although it's important to keep in mind that cost tends to be a weaker balancing factor than we often assume
[18:57] <frsd> the nicest thing about sp loss is when the enemy has to take a break for a few days after welping a t3c fleet :smile:
[18:57] <sullen> true that
[18:57] <sullen> and it makes you think about do we want to risk this
[18:57] <sullen> which is what the sp loss does
[18:57] <asher_elias> not really anymore
[18:58] <asher_elias> it's just 600m to fix your SP
[18:58] <sullen> if you removed the sp loss i guarentee groups would be just roaming in t3c's and literally not caring
[18:58] <asher_elias> is that a bad thing?
[18:58] <sullen> actually it's 700 now
[18:58] <icarus_narcissus> If SP loss remains a mechanic, the subsystem skills should not impact CPU or Powergrid supply/usage. If losing a ship results in a 1.4B ISK cost or a week of training to be able to use again, the ship is not properly viable.
[18:58] <sullen> and that's only assuming they have a low enoug htotak sp that they can get that
[18:59] <sullen> it's more a loss
[18:59] <frsd> its only a 3 day train, for most people its not worth 1-2 injectors
[18:59] <titus.tallang> what faction fighters? shadows?
[19:00] <ccp_fozzie> Since there are so many incomparable factors in deciding what types of costs players are willing to pay, often the best way to evaluate them is to observe what players do in the wild. As a collective, EVE players tend to simulate a single rational person.
[19:00] <titus.tallang> if you want a sermon on why nobody uses those, you'll want to ask rocket over in #general
[19:00] <asher_elias> considering the nature of fighting now it naturally spreads out anyway. you initial ref the citadel unopposed, you fight on round 2, even if you die it's 6 days before you the final timer so you're trained back up again
[19:00] <titus.tallang> but price is generally not the problem
[19:00] <icarus_narcissus> @asher_elias you're only thinking about K Space again
[19:01] <icarus_narcissus> In WHS we have our last fight only 48 hours after the first
[19:01] <asher_elias> that's where I and the vast majority of players are from
[19:01] <icarus_narcissus> T3 Ships and WHS players are inextricably bound
[19:01] <asher_elias> it would be weird to consider balancing based on a small subsection IMO
[19:01] <frsd> well thats citadel timers being absurdly long
[19:02] <frsd> sov timers are still ~48hrs
[19:02] <asher_elias> yeah but when was the last sov timer battle you recall?
[19:02] <asher_elias> go through and look at the big fight overviews that people release, none of them are for sov timers
[19:02] <ccp_fozzie> well if you don't balance based on small subsections we'd only ever balance for highsec
[19:03] <asher_elias> @ccp_fozzie does highsec use a lot of t3s?
[19:03] <asher_elias> I imagine tons of tengus
[19:03] <frsd> jita 4-4 campers use prots alot?
[19:04] <icarus_narcissus> Given the bonuses I'm seeing, a healthy middle ground would simply be, if possible, removing the "Core" subsystem skill from the ones possible to lose. You'd never lose the ability to fly the ship, only the effectiveness.
[19:04] <icarus_narcissus> As that is the only one that actually impacts your direct ability to put your modules on your ship
[19:05] <sullen> hmmm
[19:05] <icarus_narcissus> cap stability, dps, tank, etc can all be effected
[19:05] <sullen> that might be more viable
[19:05] <asher_elias> that's a pretty neat idea
[19:05] <sullen> so basically you can lose sp but you will never lose the last skill level
[19:05] <titus.tallang> highsec rarely sees large pvp engagements
[19:05] <icarus_narcissus> Sullen, no you'd still be able to lose Prop V or Offensive/Defensive V
[19:05] <sullen> i would mean the base stats would have to be pretty shitty though
[19:05] <titus.tallang> but the last two ones we had with deccers they used proteus blobs
[19:06] <exooki> i like that thought, the most frustrating part to me is when i lose engineering V, and NEED to replace it to even be able to fly it
[19:06] <icarus_narcissus> just make it so the "Core" (Engineering/Electronics) subsystem skill is left alone
[19:06] <exooki> i find losing dmg, speed, or tank acceptable
[19:06] <titus.tallang> i could get behind that
[19:06] <exooki> most t3C fits are pushing 99%, so losing that level of the fitting skill makes the difference of flying it or not
[19:07] <titus.tallang> it's definitely better than the current system of randomly getting fucked out of using the ship
[19:07] <icarus_narcissus> @ccp_fozzie Is that possible?
[19:07] <icarus_narcissus> Within the code?
[19:07] <ccp_fozzie> potentially, although wading into exception country is always a bit challenging
[19:08] <ccp_fozzie> removing fitting from any subsystem bonus would be a cleaner way of getting similar results
[19:08] <icarus_narcissus> Of course, the other variant would be dropping the CPU/PWG per skill bonuses and finding something else to get there
[19:08] <icarus_narcissus> you beat me to it
[19:08] <sullen> funny @ccp_fozzie i was literally thinking the same thing :stuck_out_tongue:
[19:08] <exooki> what else would you put there?
[19:08] <titus.tallang> sensor strength and/or range on the cpu sub
[19:08] <sullen> @ccp_fozzie you could tie the fitting to a fixed bonus from the module rather than skill based
[19:09] <titus.tallang> cap recharge or cap capacity on the grid one
[19:09] <titus.tallang> and just have them have "Role bonus: +25% to grid"
[19:09] <titus.tallang> or cpu
[19:09] <sullen> and bonus something else from the skill
[19:09] <titus.tallang> respectively
[19:09] <asher_elias> personally I think SP loss is a unique thing, a lot of players dislike it because it's painful but part of what attracts people to eve is the ability for things to be painful, I don't think removing it outright is the right idea. It's worked for ~8 years now
[19:09] <ccp_fozzie> yeah @sullen that would be possible
[19:09] <icarus_narcissus> Cap Warfare resistance on the PG ones
[19:09] <icarus_narcissus> may be viable
[19:09] <icarus_narcissus> small percentage -- maybe 2%/level
[19:10] <titus.tallang> that feels like a non-bonus
[19:10] <titus.tallang> why not give them something capacitor related
[19:10] <eustise> @ccp_fozzie given the lowered overall ehp of the new T3Cs, and how the rep bonus on the cloak doesn't really help explo per se, i have concerns on being able to survive 'spike' damage sources in explo PVE, like the Archive, last room, in the Superior Sleeper Caches or Ghost Sites (+ possibly the 30-40s econds of NPC damage before they leave), let alone a mishap in the Turret Room in the Superiors/the plasma container
[19:10] <ccp_fozzie> I'm liking the role bonus version
[19:10] <icarus_narcissus> Cap Warfare = Neuts/Nos
[19:10] <titus.tallang> yeah but 2% is so low
[19:10] <icarus_narcissus> Well, I'm not a numbers guy
[19:10] <icarus_narcissus> :stuck_out_tongue:
[19:10] <ccp_fozzie> although if anything really great comes up for other replacement bonuses that definitely seems worth thinking about as well
[19:11] <ccp_fozzie> cap war resistance is a tricky one, at this level it might feel a bit too situational
[19:11] <sullen> on those fittings @ccp_fozzie what was the reasoning behind not giving the loki and the legion no cpu bonus?
[19:11] <sullen> not that it's wrong
[19:11] <sullen> just wondering the reasoning
[19:12] <ccp_fozzie> @sullen largely because they don't have them now in the sub choices
[19:12] <exooki> cap war resistance would go far in making the cap usage T3s actually ued again
[19:12] <sullen> gotcha
[19:12] <ccp_fozzie> and because variety is generally positive
[19:12] <exooki> i cant speak if this is seen in K space, but no one uses hybrids or laser t3s anymore in WHs
[19:12] <exooki> because bhaals are so cheap and common theyre useless
[19:12] <exooki> so its missiles and drones or go home
[19:13] <sullen> right
[19:13] <sullen> what i was going to say though is the pg bonus is the same across all 4 races
[19:13] <titus.tallang> :thinking_face: something like a "5% reduction in capacitor usage of all modules"
[19:13] <sullen> maybe consider a pg bump for loki/legion as they will undoubtly need it more
[19:13] <titus.tallang> would that be feasible as a possible variant
[19:13] <asher_elias> @exooki citadel void bombs have pretty much eliminated active cap weapons from being a thing on serious doctrines.
[19:13] <ccp_fozzie> @sullen motivation there is that they all currently have power core multiplier as an engineering option
[19:14] <titus.tallang> i mean, it's a cap amount bonus that's weaker to neuts
[19:14] <titus.tallang> variety etc
[19:14] <sullen> so basically a carry over from current
[19:14] <titus.tallang> just a random idea vOv
[19:15] <mawderator> https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/a-new-era-of-clones/
[19:16] <mawderator> I'd argue again that the reasons that SP loss was kept in 2014 don't apply to balance to in 2017
[19:17] <ccp_fozzie> because it's part of their cost which is part of their balance?
[19:17] <asher_elias> @mawderator why should SP loss be removed?
[19:18] <ccp_fozzie> In this case is it the existence of injectors that you're referring to as difference between 2014 and 2017 or something else?
[19:18] <exooki> i think the maind ifference is injectors allow that cost to be translated to an isk cost. so its more a "hidden fee" attached to using your T3
[19:18] <sullen> yeah but it's not the same for all
[19:18] <ccp_fozzie> well we give you a popup when you get into the ship for the first time so not entirely hidden :slightly_smiling_face:
[19:18] <sullen> more experienced players means it costs more
[19:19] <sullen> if you have over 100k xp injectors don't do much
[19:19] <ccp_fozzie> and it's also a cost that you have the option of waiting to make disappear
[19:19] <sullen> sorry sp not xp. playing too muc hwarships :stuck_out_tongue:
[19:21] <exooki> random thought,
[19:21] <exooki> what if you moved the cost somehow into the building of the cruiser? mini injectors or something? would essentilly maintain the SP sink, but more immediately front the extra isk/SP cost in a super obvious way
[19:21] <asher_elias> so far the arguments against SP loss seem to be "I don't like it" and "it's bad for new players" but I don't think either of those are strong arguments for t3cs, I don't like losing my ship but it's part of eve, I'm not demanding respawns, and I don't think t3cs are a new guy doctrine
[19:23] <ccp_fozzie> Hmm, what would you guys think about swapping the PWG per level bonus into a 5% per level NOS/Neut resistance and a +20% PWG role bonus?
[19:23] <ccp_fozzie> and just straight converting the Proteus and Tengu CPU bonus into a +25% role bonus
[19:23] <exooki> i liek that idea
[19:23] <ccp_fozzie> and plan the base PWG with the 20 vs 25% in mind
[19:24] <exooki> i want to use a hybrid prot, but the prevalence of neuts makes it hard
[19:24] <exooki> ( ill assume my crazy production idea for SP is dumb and forget I said it)
[19:24] <noobman> Role bonus for all hulls?
[19:24] <exooki> on the CORE subsystem it hink
[19:25] <titus.tallang> on the respective core subs, @noobman
[19:25] <noobman> Ah ok
[19:25] <titus.tallang> so the grid would be a flat role bonus instead of per level, so you can't get situations where you can't fly a t3 now because you got shafted by sub loss rng
[19:25] <noobman> Sounds more interesting and new
[19:26] <sullen> yeah
[19:26] <sullen> basically so that you can lose skills
[19:26] <exooki> would 5% neut resist per level be enough to notice?
[19:26] <noobman> But are we gonna miss 5% pwg
[19:26] <sullen> no
[19:26] <sullen> you're going to get it
[19:26] <sullen> oh you'r saying at max 25%
[19:26] <noobman> Ya
[19:26] <sullen> yeah but a small price i think for perminant 20% regardless of skills
[19:26] <noobman> Are fits gonna work
[19:26] <noobman> Ya
[19:27] <asher_elias> @ccp_fozzie Do you think t3cs will still be used as FC boats, I know I have a legion right now that heats to 1.25m EHP that I use all the time to FC from, but I don't use the shield ones because they can't get tanky enough. Do you think the general usage will remain the same that way?
[19:27] <sullen> i like that loki's will finally be shield viable from the looks of it
[19:27] <ccp_fozzie> the EHP will definitely be lower, which will make that less powerful @asher_elias
[19:27] <ccp_fozzie> not sure if people would end up switching to something else
[19:28] <asher_elias> yeah, I hate headshots, it's a great tactic if you are on the opposing side which is why I try to use it if I can, but it's not good in general for actually making a fight happen
[19:28] <asher_elias> it's good for winning, not good for actually having a fight happen
[19:29] <titus.tallang> 25% neut resist is pretty useful
[19:29] <noobman> The fc ship is still up in the air as well
[19:30] <asher_elias> one hopes
[19:30] <sullen> one thing i'm curious about also. what was the reasoning behind removing the turrets from the RR options?
[19:30] <sullen> in the current set up you can still mount some dps
[19:30] <sullen> not much but some
[19:31] <noobman> You get drones now
[19:31] <sullen> yeah but 5 light unbonused drones is laughable lol
[19:32] <sullen> i know some wh people going to be pissed about not having the weapon mounts for some niche gameplay
[19:32] <noobman> I think most fcs would rather their Logi rep than dps
[19:32] <sullen> agreed
[19:33] <sullen> and in fleet fights i would be pissed about people fitting weapons rather than reps
[19:33] <exooki> @noobman blasphemy
[19:33] <exooki> gotta get on the kms
[19:33] <sullen> just thinking about some activites outside of main fleets that poeple use those turrets for
[19:33] <sullen> micro-gang pve
[19:33] <sullen> @exooki if that's all you want use your drones!
[19:33] <sullen> keep in mind
[19:33] <sullen> i'm not particularly opposed to the removal of the weapons
[19:33] <sullen> just know of some individuals who ain't gonna be happy lol
[19:34] <titus.tallang> well, it's an offensive sub now
[19:34] <titus.tallang> if you want spider tanking for pve you could always use unbonused reps, which still have the same range they have now (since iirc current t3s are unbonused rangewise?)
[19:34] <sullen> true
[19:34] <titus.tallang> dunno if it'd help you but the option exists (i'm not the target audience)
[19:34] <sullen> yeah i'm not either
[19:34] <sullen> i don't do it
[19:34] <sullen> cause i think it's fucking dumb
[19:34] <sullen> but i have heard of people spider tanking tengu's running shit
[19:35] <sullen> with their combined 600 dps... lolol
[19:35] <sullen> but yeah i don't feel i would be doing my duty if i didn't bring it up
[19:36] <noobman> Ya 1 remote rep tengus was a thing in WHs for years
[19:36] <ccp_fozzie> @sullen I mean it would be easy enough to add a whoring gun slot to each of them, but actually adding damage bonuses and such would probably get too messy
[19:36] <noobman> But like 3 years ago
[19:36] <sullen> yeah no bonuses
[19:36] <sullen> with 6 highs i was just thinking like 3 unbonuses turret/missile slots
[19:36] <sullen> doesn't really hurt much but i guess keeps them happy
[19:36] <ccp_fozzie> yeah we could add that easily enough, I can't really think of it causing problems
[19:37] <sullen> success
[19:37] <sullen> my job is done. i have satisfied the masses
[19:37] <sullen> all 10 of them
[19:37] <sullen> lol
[19:37] <noobman> Lol
[19:38] <eustise> @ccp_fozzie i know you're getting bombarded, but can i get an answer on the explo PVE matters i poked you about earlier?
[19:40] <ccp_fozzie> It's definitely something to keep in mind
[19:41] <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
[19:42] <ccp_fozzie> that definitely might make things tricky for some of those sites
[19:42] <rowells> What does that mean for the Loki? Since it's dual ranked
[19:42] <ccp_fozzie> basically a bit more of the hp in hull compared to shield and armor
[19:43] <eustise> there's a branching discussion to be had here wether it's intended gameplay some of the things that T3Cs are even doing in PVE
[19:43] <eustise> like tanking Ghost Site explosions and the NPC damage
[19:44] <asher_elias> are hull tanks viable on any of them, particularly the proteus?
[19:44] <eustise> however, given that the closest thing to a 'official' top-tier explo ship is the Nestor (lol)
[19:44] <eustise> i have a feeling they were meant to be 'defeated'
[19:45] <sullen> so on the topic of turrets/rr
[19:45] <sullen> we have no combined the RR/boosting to one mod
[19:45] <sullen> but it's going to literally have no dps protential at all
[19:45] <eustise> for tanking a ghost site with npcs we're talking around 40k-50k ehp needed
[19:45] <sullen> compared to 700 dps command ships
[19:46] <eustise> and all of it within 30-40 seconds, so barely 3-4 repper activations
[19:46] <ccp_fozzie> Command ships can do damage/bursts at the same time, T3Cs can do logi/bursts at the same time
[19:46] <ccp_fozzie> ideally that helps create some distinct niches
[19:46] <sullen> ah
[19:46] <sullen> so it's specifcially to create the differences
[19:46] <sullen> makes sense
[19:46] <sullen> and interesting
[19:46] <ccp_fozzie> well @eustise the original design of the ghost sites was that people would want to warp out before they went off :slightly_smiling_face:
[19:47] <eustise> i'm just asking if it's intended that cloaking needs to be dropped as part of the refit for things like the Superior Sleeper caches
[19:47] <eustise> when it wasn't needed before
[19:47] <ccp_fozzie> obviously people just skip that mostly nowadays
[19:48] <ccp_fozzie> not intended, but atm I'm a bit on the fence about whether it's a bad thing
[19:48] <ccp_fozzie> interested in your opinion and that of other people with exploration experience
[19:49] <eustise> given sleeper sites disappear from sigs after you enter it, it's intended i assume to give a bit of defence to the explo ship there, since it does take as much as a top-tier combat site to do, time-wise
[19:50] <eustise> cloaking in the site is a bad idea since it actives its inactivity timer and it can poof away with you cloaked in it anyway
[19:51] <eustise> thing is, PvP wise, i'm really enjoying the current proposed changes, i'm just wondering whether the high end PVE and be solved without touching the current T3C matters, reworking numbers on the sites themselves
[19:57] <sturm_gewehr> @ccp_fozzie What is the intention of having 7 highs 6 launchers on tengu missile sub and 5 launchers 7 highs on loki missile sub?
[19:59] <ccp_fozzie> extra highs have historically been a small part of the Minmatar theme
[19:59] <ccp_fozzie> utility highs
[19:59] <sullen> utility-tar!
[19:59] <ccp_fozzie> well drone ships are their own thing :slightly_smiling_face:
[20:00] <sturm_gewehr> Double utility seems excessive.
[20:00] <titus.tallang> more like mixedweapons-tar
[20:00] <titus.tallang> it has 5 launchers _2 turrets_
[20:00] <titus.tallang> !
[20:01] <titus.tallang> (i'm kidding don't kill me)
[20:01] <icarus_narcissus> Well, you're not wrong
[20:01] <icarus_narcissus> in theory anyways
[20:01] <titus.tallang> could always give it a dumb bonus like "bcs fitted to this ship also affect its projectile turrets"
[20:01] <sturm_gewehr> The turrets won't see much use.
[20:02] <ccp_fozzie> nah giving people the option of filling their utilities with the off-weapon system is also a minmatar tradition more than anything else
[20:02] <eustise> @titus.tallang > INCREASED PROJECTILE VELOCITY SPEED
[20:02] <eustise> why yes, i like that :stuck_out_tongue:
[20:02] <ccp_fozzie> if you're shooting pocos or something it's helpful
[20:02] <titus.tallang> if you're shooting pocos in the kind of safety that you'd sac utility highs for turrets
[20:03] <titus.tallang> you wouldn't be using a projectile platform in all honestly
[20:03] <titus.tallang> or missile platform
[20:03] <icarus_narcissus> lasers and drones!
[20:04] <eustise> in any case, i'll sit for the night with the pve changes and see if i can put pen to paper to a more coherent train of though
[20:07] <eustise> just to context it, @ccp_fozzie , are these changes meant to cut t3c pve usage in wormhole sleeper sites and 10/10s? and separately, is it the vision that t3cs should be the end-game pve explo boat or does that role 'belong' to the nestor and it t3s have been 'usurping' its throne?
[20:07] <ccp_fozzie> we generally try to avoid having ships envisioned as kings of specific gameplay
[20:08] <ccp_fozzie> we're making buckets and shovels, and this shovel should be different enough from other shovels that some people find it useful for making their sandcastles
[20:08] <sturm_gewehr> The tengu missile utility highslot wasn't answered, can't really understand the benefit over another lowslot.
[20:09] <ccp_fozzie> I think that if the spread of ships running things like 10/10s gets a bit more diverse that's a good thing
[20:09] <ccp_fozzie> but we don't really feel a need to "crush" T3Cs for any specific gameplay, including that stuff
[20:09] <eustise> i ran my tengu numbers, and for sure i'll switch to a rattle after these changes :stuck_out_tongue:
[20:10] <ccp_fozzie> @sturm_gewehr a lowslot would definitely be more powerful, but the question is does it need more power
[20:10] <ccp_fozzie> if so then we can definitely look at it
[20:10] <eustise> it loses one mid and two lows compared to the current setup, and losing the lows will hurt the ability to even 'punch through' say the base in a sansha 10/10
[20:10] <ccp_fozzie> but we don't want to be optimizing every part of a ship to be the best possible, or we get an overpowered ship
[20:11] <ccp_fozzie> what old and new fits are you comparing in this case @eustise?
[20:11] <ccp_fozzie> I'll take a look
[20:12] <ccp_fozzie> subsystem fits rather than full module fits (which we don't have enough info to do with the new design yet)
[20:12] <eustise> dissolution/amp node/aug cap/accelerated ejection /fuel catalyst
[20:12] <icarus_narcissus> I'd actually like to see the exploration subsystem have a cargo role bonus...
[20:12] <ccp_fozzie> that may be possible @icarus_narcissus
[20:13] <icarus_narcissus> When doing WH exploration, one good data site and you need to run home 3 times to gather the loot (or chase yourself around in a blockade runner alt)
[20:14] <eustise> well, if we're sticking with the the lower ehp and it's more fragility in sites, leaving heavy-tanking sites to something like a nestor, it may be cool to offset that with a bonus to the range of the scanning modules
[20:16] <noobman> I'm curious how the many medium neuts a 7high slot neut legion can fit with a 1600mm plate
[20:17] <ccp_fozzie> @eustise compared to that fit this draft of the new design should either be -1 low +1 mid or -2 low +2 mid
[20:17] <ccp_fozzie> depending on which core sub you use
[20:18] <sturm_gewehr> @ccp_fozzie the extra highslots on loki and tengu missile subs, at the expense of lows or mids, removes versatility rather than adding to it. Losing lows with mobility nerfs will really hit small gang hard.
[20:18] <eustise> an active tank will lose first and foremost resistences, thus ehp gained per pulse, which i'm not sure a single extra mid will cover
[20:18] <eustise> but the lows are the hurting matter
[20:18] <sturm_gewehr> While the loki missile sub bonuses seem pretty solid and tengu is okay (would prefer jackdaw bonuses), the slot layouts are awful.
[20:19] <eustise> i get 722 dps atm in my fit, -2 BCSs, it's down to 594, which can't break a lot of the passive regen of the bosses you're fighting in some hightier sites
[20:20] <eustise> so even in the best case offensive scenario of -1 low +1mid, you're left less tanked and less damage-potential than before
[20:20] <eustise> with -2 low and +2mid, you're more fit to at least stay alive but you'll pick and choose your sites, and deff not 10/10s
[20:21] <sturm_gewehr> Especially depending on where the fitting changes come in and what ships can actually spend, utility highs usually severely cut into other aspects of the hull.
[20:21] <ccp_fozzie> depending on how deep you are into stacking penalties and what damage types you're facing @eustise the extra mid can easily outweigh the resistance change
[20:22] <eustise> i'm more worried about the sig per se, i can fight resistences
[20:22] <eustise> but fifty billion ships shooting at a roughly 20% bigger target.. eh
[20:23] <ccp_fozzie> keep in mind 20% is about the same difference as between a vaga and cerb for instance
[20:23] <eustise> btw, that best case scenario of damage is done with the agility sub right?
[20:24] <eustise> not the prop mod bonus one, which an active tank tengu will be liable to use
[20:24] <sturm_gewehr> Also the ab/missile/active tengu slot layout seems to hurt pve as well, where the utility high is not nearly as important as an additional low (from what I understand-haven't done pve tengu much).
[20:24] <eustise> and well, am using currently
[20:25] <ccp_fozzie> yup the agility + warp speed sub has an extra low
[20:26] <eustise> either way it gets sliced, i can see t3cs being used mostly in 6/10, 8/10 or low escalations, but will definitely lose their potential as the things you can use to do tougher content
[20:26] <eustise> if we'd still get the 4 lows then maybe survivability can be patched in with more careful flying and lots of drugs
[20:27] <icarus_narcissus> I think it's just a fact of this ~rebalance~ overhaul that we are going to have to re-examine our current fits and their roles. Once we have more solid stats we'll know more. The other thing we need to account for is the ability to refit everything -- including rigs -- at a depot.
[20:27] <eustise> but you can't really do much with DPS failing to kill the thing that drops the shiny loot
[20:28] <ccp_fozzie> 10/10s were so much harder in my day :slightly_smiling_face:
[20:28] <icarus_narcissus> @ccp_fozzie If those days are our design goal, can we get AoE doomsdays through cynos back? :wink:
[20:28] <eustise> don't get me wrong, t3c's have shitter clear rate times than other ships *coughfactionbattleshipscough*
[20:29] <eustise> but this won't diversify the stuff you get to see running high tier pve
[20:29] <ccp_fozzie> @icarus_narcissus probably not :slightly_smiling_face:
[20:29] <eustise> next up on my list to check is the passive fits but i'm not holding out much hope
[20:29] <icarus_narcissus> Good. Some things are best left in the past :slightly_smiling_face:
[20:31] <ccp_fozzie> slot layouts are definitely up for discussion
[20:31] <ccp_fozzie> but I don't want to automatically default to whatever is the most powerful, or we start having problems :slightly_smiling_face:
[20:31] <ccp_fozzie> especially since we've actually got more slots total in this design
[20:32] <ccp_fozzie> so if the utility high starts going elsewhere it gets dangerous balance-wise
[20:33] <white0rchid> On the flipside, I suspect you don't want to end up in a situation that makes the ship completely unusable.
[20:33] <white0rchid> For a specific role.
[20:35] <sturm_gewehr> It's less about power and more about removing options right now. Tengu highslots removes existing gameplay options without offering much, if anything, in return.
[20:36] <ccp_fozzie> in most of those cases where the ship is losing lows it's also gaining mids
[20:36] <sturm_gewehr> It directly hurts current solo/small gang playstyles and PvE.
[20:36] <ccp_fozzie> which means it might be a better idea to look at the mid/low split
[20:36] <white0rchid> I took a quick look at the tengu for PvE, seems it's losing some options there?
[20:37] <white0rchid> May be able to field nice tank but loses some dps maybe?
[20:37] <eustise> it's losing either one or two lows, the worse option depending if you want AB hard enough
[20:37] <white0rchid> Yeah.
[20:37] <eustise> and gaining one or two mids for the trouble, which may just mark it kind of about where it is now, survivability wise
[20:38] <ccp_fozzie> no in the earlier discussion both the -1 and -2 low version are with the AB sub
[20:38] <ccp_fozzie> the difference was the electronics or power sub
[20:39] <eustise> the mids in the tengu only get added by the agility/prop mod(2 or 1) and the active tank (1)
[20:39] <eustise> in the current setup
[20:40] <ccp_fozzie> yeah so if you assume active tank and prop mod, then you either shift one or two slots from low to mid depending on the electronics/power choice
[20:43] <eustise> mids/defenses on the tengu we can handle and patch over, though the AB is pretty necessary to the not dying part, but in this case we're losing two BCS guaranteed out of the four we currently can slap on
[20:45] <sturm_gewehr> And for pvp, losing BCS, nanofibers, RCUs, PDUs, etc.
[20:45] <titus.tallang> personally i feel that having 1 low slot is really _never_ desirable
[20:45] <eustise> sure 'get perfect skills scrub' may apply, but even with, i'm dropping from 903 with scourges (which will get changed by what i'm fighting anyway) to 742
[20:45] <titus.tallang> even if it gives you 8 mids
[20:45] <eustise> max skills with 2 i get 800
[20:45] <sturm_gewehr> Extra mids may compensate some by switching shield rigs for mobility, damage, fitting, etc.
[20:46] <sturm_gewehr> But that will depend a lot on the stats and again, utility high doesn't have much to offer pve or small because most low fitting highs aren't particularly valuable and the ones that are more useful hit your fitting really hard.
[20:47] <sturm_gewehr> Especially considering some fits, like 100mn, run with a 5 launcher sub because of pg constraints already.
[20:50] <eustise> looking over the new loki, it may deal better for PVE post change than the tengu
[20:50] <sturm_gewehr> And turret slots makes more sense on the missile sub with a split bonus but medium projectiles struggle enough as is in many contexts that investing the fitting to use those turrets has a severe takeaway from other places.
[20:50] <ccp_fozzie> the utility high not being as good as a low is by design @sturm_gewehr
[20:51] <sturm_gewehr> Single utility still fits minnie design, neuts are popular on ships like cane, vaga, etc.
[20:51] <ccp_fozzie> if we give them an extra low somewhere it would likely come from the mids, not that high (which is a free slot the ships got on top of their current slot numbers)
[20:51] <ccp_fozzie> unless we really feel they need a serious buff
[20:52] <sturm_gewehr> I can't say with much certainty how severe it impacts gameplay without stats but it is concerning right now with the shallow glance we currently have.
[20:52] <ccp_fozzie> pretend that high doesn't exist, which would leave us with the same number of slots as current T3Cs
[20:53] <ccp_fozzie> in that world without the extra high, what would you change in the slot layouts?
[20:53] <sturm_gewehr> For ab, -1 mid, +1 low, probably.
[20:53] <sturm_gewehr> Again, depending on stats.
[20:54] <ccp_fozzie> yeah that's definitely an option
[20:54] <ccp_fozzie> on both the tengu and loki or just the tengu?
[20:54] <sturm_gewehr> Just tengu, haven't investigated loki as much.
[20:55] <ccp_fozzie> yeah that is definitely doable
[20:55] <ccp_fozzie> would be interested in hearing what others thing about that change
[20:55] <eustise> >insert everyone hating you now for losing a mid on the tengu
[20:55] <ccp_fozzie> *think
[20:55] <ccp_fozzie> :slightly_smiling_face:
[20:55] <ccp_fozzie> yeah that would mean no more 8 mid tengus :slightly_smiling_face:
[20:55] <ccp_fozzie> but would leave us with the same number of max mids on it as today
[20:55] <sturm_gewehr> And again, current layout could be fine depending on stats, which we don't currently have.
[20:56] <sturm_gewehr> Depending on the fit, current 100mn gu usuallt has 5 high, 5 low.
[20:56] <icarus_narcissus> So, the suggestion on the table is turning the Prop mod tengu sub to +1 Mid +1 Low?
[20:56] <icarus_narcissus> from +2 Mid?
[20:56] <ccp_fozzie> c
[20:56] <sturm_gewehr> Going to 7 high 3 low is a massive change.
[20:56] <ccp_fozzie> yeah it's not something we need to decide on right now either way
[20:57] <icarus_narcissus> That removes the possibility for the 8 mid Tengu entirely making it the only one incapable of 8 slots in its primary tanking rack
[20:58] <ccp_fozzie> well the loki and proteus can only do the 8 slot tank with their support subsystem
[20:58] <sturm_gewehr> For active tank.
[20:58] <icarus_narcissus> Unless you, say, switched it with the Base Speed or Agility one
[20:58] <ccp_fozzie> so it's already a bit limited for anyone other than the legion and tengu
[20:58] <eustise> slots were never equal to be fair, given damage/manuv in lows and ewar in mids
[20:59] <ccp_fozzie> yup
[20:59] <sturm_gewehr> How important is an 8 slot active tanked tengu for other playstyles?
[20:59] <ccp_fozzie> it was not an accident that the legion and tengu were the ones with the more natural 8 slot tanks
[20:59] <ccp_fozzie> I mean 8 slot tengu is a new thing
[20:59] <eustise> one ewar mid can mean more battlefield effectiveness than one damage low
[20:59] <ccp_fozzie> so it's hard to evaluate
[20:59] <ccp_fozzie> a lot of the results of changes this big are going to be unpredictable
[21:00] <eustise> that's what i'm looking at now, what really benefits from an 8 slot fitting
[21:05] <titus.tallang> gives you room for utility on shield fits i guess?
[21:05] <titus.tallang> still, i feel 1 low is too little for practically any application
[21:05] <icarus_narcissus> Some insanity on the ECM front
[21:05] <titus.tallang> 2 lows is cutting it close already
[21:06] <icarus_narcissus> Personally, I think the one mid/one low makes more sense
[21:06] <icarus_narcissus> over two mids
[21:06] <icarus_narcissus> I'm just trying to think of the other scenarios
[21:06] <ccp_fozzie> well 1 low only happens with one specific subsystem combo
[21:06] <eustise> we were looking screwy, on the tengu the lowest you can go is 2 lows, 1 in active tank, and 1 in sensors or overheat
[21:07] <sturm_gewehr> I can't see the 8 mid slot active tanked tengu being that useful, especially with potential fitting restraints but I would like to hear more feedback.
[21:07] <ccp_fozzie> 0 on covert
[21:07] <ccp_fozzie> if you had an afterburning cloaking ecm tengu then it might have 1 low
[21:07] <ccp_fozzie> but that's a pretty specific niche
[21:07] <eustise> so an AB cloaky DPS sensors/overheat Tengu
[21:08] <eustise> which.. i don't super see the use for :stuck_out_tongue:
[21:08] <eustise> nothing that 1 low won't bother it anyway
[21:08] <icarus_narcissus> There are some fits which may deserve one low slot...
[21:08] <icarus_narcissus> :stuck_out_tongue:
[21:08] <ccp_fozzie> yeah just because 1 low is possible doesn't mean it's going to get in a lot of people's way
[21:08] <sturm_gewehr> But current tengu slot layout options (in addition to nerfs) are (probably) problematic for active and passive 100mn tengus for small to mid scale.
[21:08] <sturm_gewehr> 100mn missile*
[21:09] <sturm_gewehr> A big thing is on live most fits are 5 launcher, gaining a 6th launcher at the cost of a low is, probably, too high.
[21:09] <ccp_fozzie> yeah it's a big change for them
[21:09] <ccp_fozzie> a bit of extra mass helps those fits though, as does the AB heat bonus
[21:10] <sturm_gewehr> Losing agility and speed while also gaining sig and losing the mod slots that help the most to fix.
[21:11] <sturm_gewehr> I do want to put out a 5 missile launcher, 6 high slot missile tengu sun as an option for +1 low.
[21:11] <sturm_gewehr> Instead of 6 launcher 7 high slot that is current.
[21:12] <frsd> Is there anything thats stopping 4 different subsystems for offensive?
[21:12] <frsd> it doesn't need to be all the same
[21:12] <ccp_fozzie> yes, we can't support that on our end
[21:12] <eustise> :art:
[21:12] <sturm_gewehr> Change to jackdaw esque bonuses and you better preserve a more niche style and open up space for other hml hulls like cerb.
[21:13] <ccp_fozzie> an art guy would come over to my desk and knock me out with one of those expensive digital drawing tablets
[21:13] <sturm_gewehr> But I know 6 launcher to 5 can hurt pve and some of the larger scale pvp fits.
[21:13] <eustise> could have the same art asset as another subsystem but eh, that'd be cheesing it
[21:14] <frsd> If its the same weapon type it's not too far fetched
[21:14] <frsd> just slightly different bonuses and slots
[21:14] <titus.tallang> wouldn't be able to tell them apart visually
[21:14] <titus.tallang> not sure i like that
[21:15] <frsd> if its different number of hardpoints you can count :smile:
[21:15] <titus.tallang> :s
[21:15] <ccp_fozzie> @sturm_gewehr can you send me the most current 100mn fits you guys are running with?
[21:16] <icarus_narcissus> Let's try to keep Fozzie from being broken by Pointybits and Saviour?
[21:18] <sturm_gewehr> One moment.
[21:18] <sturm_gewehr> On mobile, are lossmails okay?
[21:18] <sturm_gewehr> Nvm I should be able to export from the mail.
[21:19] <ccp_fozzie> yeah lossmails are fine
[21:20] <ccp_fozzie> o/
[21:20] <icarus_narcissus> \o
[21:20] <ccp_fozzie> ok we're almost entirely here now
[21:20] <eustise> \o/
[21:20] <noxisia> o/
[21:20] <noxisia> I'm still reading the large amount of messages I've missed
[21:20] <ccp_fozzie> just missing Progod who is probably taking a week long nap
[21:20] <rowells> Have fun with the scroll back
[21:21] <ccp_fozzie> and Xenuria who will be joining us as a csm11 member
[21:22] <noxisia> Luckily there's logs or I'd be out of luck
[21:23] <rowells> This appears to be a rare "paid" server. Got shit all the way back to 2016
[21:24] <titus.tallang> slack scrollback is 10k messages across the entire team
[21:24] <titus.tallang> not time limited
[21:25] <titus.tallang> and this one was mostly inert after the capital ships group wound down in late 2016, with only minor bursts of activity around capitals-centric events (BR caps, rorqual nerfs etc)
[21:25] <titus.tallang> tldr i don't think it's paid we just haven't talked enough (yet)
[21:25] <eustise> wait, ECM is getting strenght /and/ range on the Tengu?
[21:25] <rowells> And heat
[21:26] <eustise> yeah but overheating ECM just adds strenght, not range
[21:26] <rowells> Maybe I'm just used to severs where yesterday's messages disappear today
[21:26] <eustise> range is a whole new addition to the role
[21:27] <rowells> Yes
[21:27] <rowells> Wait it is?
[21:27] <sturm_gewehr> No it isn't, there are two separate tengu subs for ecm currently
[21:27] <eustise> the rifling and the obfuscation
[21:27] <sturm_gewehr> One is strength, one is range.
[21:28] <rowells> Right, and it looks like range went down per level
[21:28] <rowells> 12.5 -> 10.0
[21:28] <eustise> yeah, just saw the exact numbers now
[21:28] <exooki> previously, you had to choose range or strength on a jamgu
[21:29] <eustise> nope, range is in offensive, strenght is in electronics
[21:29] <sturm_gewehr> Yup
[21:29] <sturm_gewehr> Combining them is a good change imo.
[21:29] <ccp_fozzie> this combines them into one, gives the heat bonus and tones down the range a bit
[21:29] <exooki> you couldnt do both, or youd have no tank
[21:29] <eustise> well, now you can have tank, jam, and a full offensive slot
[21:30] <rowells> Couldn't =/= shouldn't
[21:31] <rowells> So, with the heat bonus, is it stronger or weaker than a falcon/rook?
[21:31] <eustise> in any case, a passive ran, bonused RLML, 100mn ab jamgu is now an option
[21:32] <sturm_gewehr> Or jamgu with infowar links.
[21:32] <eustise> or that
[21:32] <eustise> just seems too 'flight of the valkyrie' for me
[21:33] <rowells> Oh that's right, can bonus your own ewar
[21:33] <sturm_gewehr> Which could have a pretty big impact on small to mid sized fleets, would need to investigate more and, ofc, stats.
[21:33] <eustise> well, blackbird has 15% ecm strenght and 12.5 range
[21:34] <eustise> and a falcon has 30% strenght
[21:34] <ccp_fozzie> Returning briefly to the 100mn fits hurt by not being able to drop highs:
[21:35] <ccp_fozzie> one potential option to consider would be to put an AB PWG reduction role bonus on the new fuel catalyst sub
[21:35] <ccp_fozzie> ~25% would basically replace a RCU or T2 ACR
[21:35] <sturm_gewehr> Or other mobility bonuses to compensate nerfs and removal ofows.
[21:35] <sturm_gewehr> But that is a great start, imo.
[21:35] <ccp_fozzie> another tool available in our toolbox
[21:36] <sturm_gewehr> Removes the need for usually 1-3 fitting mods or rigs.
[21:37] <sturm_gewehr> Any thoughts on jackdaw style bonuses for tengu?
[21:37] <sturm_gewehr> Or at least removing kin lock?
[21:37] <ccp_fozzie> again it's not a question of whether those would make the ship more powerful: they would
[21:38] <ccp_fozzie> it's a question of whether the ship should be made more powerful in that way
[21:39] <mawderator> Alternatively giving it an Osprey Navy option where other missiles damage types get an intermediate bonus
[21:39] <rowells> If I'm looking at the bonuses + launchers, the tengu still does more damage than Loki or legion with non-kinetic ammo?
[21:39] <ccp_fozzie> yup, although the combo of one damage bonus and one rof bonus already does that
[21:40] <ccp_fozzie> in this version posted the tengu with non-kin ammo has 9.6 effective launchers
[21:40] <ccp_fozzie> vs 10 on the loki and 8 on the legion
[21:40] <ccp_fozzie> but the legion also having the ~200dps of bonused drone damage
[21:41] <rowells> Ah, that might be an issue for Loki v tengu imo
[21:41] <ccp_fozzie> this tengu is 12 launchers with kin, 9.6 without
[21:41] <rowells> Thought it's a small difference (0.4)
[21:42] <sturm_gewehr> You could compensate a bit with rof bonus, for example.
[21:42] <ccp_fozzie> and the option to go to 12 with kin which the loki doesn't have, and twice the range bonus of the loki
[21:42] <mawderator> wrt "why should should sp loss be removed" I'll come one back to you when I'm not on a tablet and get an opportunity to make a better case for that
[21:42] <ccp_fozzie> although the loki gets an extra utility high and a 5% per level explosion velocity bonus above the tengu
[21:43] <ccp_fozzie> so both get a set of advantages over the other
[21:43] <sturm_gewehr> One issue is sp loss in age of injectors is like paying more for losing your pod with high sp character.
[21:43] <ccp_fozzie> sounds good @mawderator thanks
[21:43] <sturm_gewehr> Which was removed because it was declared bad design to pay more for pvp because you are an older character.
[21:44] <mawderator> aside from SP loss, as is not all subsystems are equally valuable (which I realize is being changed or mitigated)
[21:44] <ccp_fozzie> doing it for all pvp and doing it for four specific ships that have alternatives isn't the same thing though
[21:45] <mawderator> Right now I almost don't care if I lose a slight heat bonus as opposed to a tank or dps subsystem skill
[21:46] <mawderator> I also can't choose which skill I lose on death
[21:46] <mawderator> So if I happen to be mapped the wrong way on skill attributes
[21:46] <sturm_gewehr> There aren't always t3 alternatives.
[21:47] <noxisia> I'm still reading through the old comments but tacking onto this conversation - we're talking about the current weapon bonuses.
[21:47] <mawderator> It could be a 5 day train instead of a 3.5 day train, so it does not feel like I've any meaningfull choice
[21:49] <noxisia> Osprey navy vs. the sub-systems as is: is there a reason that the weapon systems are broken out into two separate varieties? primary weapon vs. secondary weapon? isn't it easier to balance with less subsystems?
[21:49] <steveronuken> changing the training time either involves people dropping in skill levels, or giving people more SP
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> @ccp_fozzie here's the current 100mn fit used therabois and a couple other C2/null groups
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> [Tengu, WH 100mn]
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> Caldari Navy Ballistic Control System
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> Reactor Control Unit II
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> Nanofiber Internal Structure II
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> Federation Navy 100MN Afterburner
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> Pith X-Type EM Ward Field
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> Republic Fleet Large Shield Extender
[21:49] <caprisunkraftfoods> Republic Fleet Warp Disruptor
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Missile Guidance Computer II, Missile Range Script
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Scourge Rage Heavy Assault Missile
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Medium Ancillary Current Router I
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Medium Hydraulic Bay Thrusters II
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Tengu Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> Tengu Propulsion - Gravitational Capacitor
[21:50] <ccp_fozzie> not entirely sure what you're asking @noxisia
[21:50] <noxisia> why's there a need for a primary / seondary sub system? vs. 1 that boosts either?
[21:50] <ccp_fozzie> suggesting going with one offensive sub that has bonuses to all the weapons?
[21:50] <caprisunkraftfoods> theres quite a bit of variance on meta levels, and warp speed sub vs AB sub is interchangeable, but you get the idea
[21:50] <ccp_fozzie> it's easier one some than others @noxisia
[21:50] <ccp_fozzie> we could do something like the Scythe Fleet Issue for the loki for instance, but it wouldn't work on the Proteus
[21:51] <ccp_fozzie> since you'd just use both drones and hybrids at the same time and do all the dps
[21:51] <ccp_fozzie> all of it
[21:51] <ccp_fozzie> thanks @caprisunkraftfoods
[21:51] <caprisunkraftfoods> imo the problem with dual bonusing a ship, is that you end up with a ship that has shitty bonuses and only gets used because of other factors. see: Typhoon Fleet Issue
[21:52] <ccp_fozzie> all in all I'm pretty confident that trying to condense the offensive subs more would not make them easier to balance
[21:52] <ccp_fozzie> Ok I'm heading home for the night folks
[21:53] <caprisunkraftfoods> \o
[21:53] <noxisia> o/
[21:53] <ccp_fozzie> I'll catch up on scrollback in the morning
[21:53] <ccp_fozzie> o/
[21:53] <mawderator> @steveronuken I'm not taking about changing training time, I'm referring to the current system of which subsystem skill you lose on death being a lottery
[21:53] <noxisia> I'm still thinking about the weapon splits
[21:54] <mawderator> And how you have to hope the skill you lost is relatively less useful or is one you're at least currently mapped for on your skull attributes
[21:54] <rowells> Skill loss in general just feels more of a pain than a drawback. There must be another way to have a meaningful penalty.
[21:54] <frsd> all subsystem skills have the same attributes
[21:54] <frsd> nvm
[21:54] <caprisunkraftfoods> YEAH
[21:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> YOU DELETE THE LINE
[21:55] <frsd> :smile:
[21:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> :stuck_out_tongue:
[21:55] <frsd> better to delete instantly that plant something wrong in someones head
[21:55] <rowells> It's in the logs. Let the shame flow
[21:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> its not
[21:55] <rowells> No?
[21:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> the log bot mirrors your deletes and edits too :stuck_out_tongue:
[21:56] <frsd> well i guess then it's there
[21:56] <rowells> Lame. Should just keep the bad spelling and jumbled wording in all its glory
[21:58] <rowells> Back on topic, if the sp loss were to go away, what should be there to replace it?
[21:58] <sturm_gewehr> More isk is the easiest/most obvious.
[22:00] <eustise> technically
[22:00] <eustise> it /is/ isk right now
[22:00] <sturm_gewehr> If we are spitballing creative ideas: cooldown after death, maybe stacking like jump fatigue.
[22:00] <eustise> just a buttload of it
[22:00] <frsd> cooldown sounds even worse than flying around with lvl 4
[22:01] <eustise> anything that punishes you post-death is a no in my book
[22:01] <sturm_gewehr> Level 4 can be paid to fix immediately.
[22:01] <eustise> flying 4's it's at least completely fine, a whole battle will not hedge on you doing 2% more dps
[22:01] <frsd> at the cost of 1-2 extra t3s
[22:01] <sturm_gewehr> What's a pre death cost to add?
[22:01] <eustise> but a 15 minute cooldown while your buddies are dying? eh
[22:02] <sturm_gewehr> It does give it some strategic considerations, especially for doctrines. Not convinced I like it better than current system or more isk like now though.
[22:03] <sturm_gewehr> Whelp a t3 fleet then you can't field another for x amount of time.
[22:03] <frsd> you can, it's just less effective
[22:04] <sturm_gewehr> Talking about lockout after death, not sp loss.
[22:04] <eustise> i really don't like it, plus, it will get messy really fast
[22:04] <eustise> is it per ship?
[22:04] <eustise> so i can lose a loki, then a prot, then a legion, then a tengu
[22:04] <sturm_gewehr> This is just brainstorming, can be whatever we want it to be.
[22:05] <eustise> per class? so even if you want to go in a RR or ecmgu, you can't?
[22:05] <sturm_gewehr> Can be a short lockout, longer, scaling like jump fatigue, per hull, per sub, entire class.
[22:06] <eustise> well, what problem would removing SP solve?
[22:07] <icarus_narcissus> I think the SP loss is not a problem if it doesn't prevent you from fitting the ship again vis a vis power grid or cpu
[22:08] <icarus_narcissus> Bring less effective is fine
[22:08] <icarus_narcissus> Being ineffective is not
[22:08] <eustise> so flattening the PWG/CPU would be fine?
[22:08] <icarus_narcissus> Like was said a while ago
[22:09] <eustise> well, that's a much simpler solution than introducing a cooldown :slightly_smiling_face:
[22:09] <icarus_narcissus> :)
[22:11] <frsd> on another note, taking a look at the proteus. with cloak & drone subsystem if seems to fill the exact same role that the stratios is currently used for. just way better
[22:12] <icarus_narcissus> Not entirely sure that's a bad thing. Faction falling below T3CS...
[22:13] <frsd> more like falling off the table completely
[22:14] <eustise> wait, what---
[22:15] <icarus_narcissus> They will be cheaper, have lower skill requirements, and (Currently) no SP loss.
[22:15] <eustise> i can /swear/ when i looked initially, the Proteus just had the Drone Velocity/tracking bonus
[22:16] <icarus_narcissus> Proteus will out perform the vigilant too
[22:16] <frsd> vigilant has 90% webs, only reason people use it if at all
[22:17] <rowells> I just had a vision of an entirely cloaks nullified combat fleet of T3s with all the fixings and support.
[22:18] <eustise> it'll still be paper thin
[22:18] <rowells> Weaker, but I wouldn't say paper thin
[22:18] <eustise> and don't forget the lower lock range
[22:18] <eustise> which i forgot to bug fozzie about
[22:19] <eustise> for both combat and pve, it'll be healthier for it to be changed to a targetting resolution penalty
[22:19] <rowells> It's gonna depend how much lower it is really
[22:19] <sullen> @frsd agreed about the vigilant
[22:19] <sullen> i'ts got a niche
[22:19] <eustise> i'm thinking between 25% and 50%
[22:19] <sullen> it fills it well
[22:19] <sullen> don't make it fill others
[22:22] <rowells> Even with the lower lock range, the staying power of a T3 blops fleet just went super high
[22:22] <rowells> Or any Blood for that matter
[22:22] <rowells> Blops*
[22:22] <icarus_narcissus> Yeah, bad comparison. Maybe the Exequror Navy would be a better example
[22:23] <eustise> thus my point of switching to a targetting penalty
[22:23] <frsd> exequror navies are dirt cheap
[22:24] <icarus_narcissus> Exactly. Cost as balancing factor
[22:25] <frsd> stratios is a different cost bracket and fills a niche
[22:26] <frsd> and some people pimp them hard
[22:26] <rowells> Is there a way to passively ping someone?
[22:26] <rowells> @eustise depending on how much the nerf is, you have to consider how much the core sub will counter it
[22:28] <eustise> true, however the core sensors/cpu comes at the cost of a low
[22:28] <eustise> i don't know about you, but i'll take the low and slot a signal amplifier
[22:29] <rowells> Meh, depends on the ship
[22:30] <rowells> Or tank rather
[22:30] <rowells> But I see the trade off has its merits
[22:30] <eustise> i assumed we were talking cloaky, and also nullified given our interest in lock ranges
[22:31] <eustise> i have two different objections about the lock ranges on the nullified, for explo it will compound extremely hard with WCS's, as carebearish as that might sound
[22:31] <rowells> I was thinking being armor or shield would be more decisive in whether a sig amp or sebo is preferred
[22:31] <eustise> and for pvp, it can be worked around
[22:32] <rowells> You know, now that I think about it, it's actually going to hurt some of my favorite FC boats having the probes as part of the cloak sub
[22:33] <rowells> I wonder if it would be worthwhile to give the fitting reduction to the hull instead of a sub, just like the T3Ds
[22:33] <eustise> to be really fair
[22:33] <eustise> it felt gratuitous on the t3d's
[22:34] <rowells> Oh I loved it actually
[22:34] <eustise> i love it too, doesn't mean i think it was something they should have just slapped on
[22:34] <noxisia> It was a nice baked in bonus
[22:34] <noxisia> but I agree with @eustise
[22:34] <icarus_narcissus> I also agree with @eustise
[22:34] <noxisia> It's so strong an an already extremely capable ship
[22:34] <rowells> I have a negative opinion of the high CPU needs of probes in general, so I like any fitting bonus anywhere
[22:35] <eustise> however, in t3c's case, being a more 'fleet' type ship
[22:35] <eustise> i don't think offloading just the -probe CPU bonus on the hull would be that bad of a thing
[22:36] <eustise> not sure the probe strenght should follow
[22:36] <eustise> but it does pose an interesting conundrum
[22:36] <rowells> Strength should stay separate imo
[22:36] <eustise> if we could have a non-covops virus strenght/probe strenght explorer
[22:37] <rowells> _looks longingly at nestor_
[22:37] <eustise> i mean, for all intents and purposes, you can have a pvp proteus which you can also explo with
[22:37] <eustise> if you /really/ want to
[22:38] <eustise> sacrifice a mid for the universal analyzer and that's pretty much it
[22:39] <rowells> "I want to do explo but I _really_ hate cloaks"
[22:40] <eustise> although i'm totally intrigued by the tractor beam range
[22:43] <rowells> I've only ever used that twice. Once in an abandoned attempt to do wormhole spelunking, and the other as a loot mod for my FC boat
[22:43] <icarus_narcissus> Current T3Cs have that too. I'd be curious as to how much tractors are actually used since mtus came out
[22:45] <eustise> psh, would you believe me i never noticed it on the Locus Analyzer
[22:45] <eustise> what, was that left over by when we had Scatter containers?
[22:45] <rowells> It's been on there since T3s came out iirc
[22:46] <rowells> Couldn't even target loot spew
[22:47] <rowells> Although that gives me a terrible idea
[22:47] <eustise> i would trade it with a 20% per level bonus to the Analyzer ranges
[22:47] <rowells> Instead of straight sp loss, what if you dropped a short-decay can with 100k injectors equal to your loss in it?
[22:48] <eustise> ... maybe not 100k, you need some losses in the system
[22:48] <eustise> but 50k? sure, that'd be stupidly neat
[22:48] <eustise> 'Daily event: Kill a T3C'
[22:48] <rowells> Lol
[22:49] <eustise> although, i'm sure someone will do the math and will end up buying 2000 t3cs and blowing them up with his alt since they'd be cheaper than injectors
[22:49] <eustise> /somehow/
[22:51] <eustise> either way, it'd be neat, and if you won the battle, there'd be the possibility of getting half your training time back or something akin
[22:51] <eustise> but don't know if it's worth the dev time
[22:52] <eustise> someone PM'd me an idea with having SP lost go to a 'pool', that once you use an injector, it gets added as well
[22:52] <eustise> on top of however much you'd get from the injector itself
[22:53] <eustise> that'd be great for getting people to buy injectors since you never really 'lose' the SP, and it means more conversions for CCP
[22:53] <rowells> "Salvaged brain matter - 100 units"
[22:57] <icarus_narcissus> I got that one too. Basically, that removes the skill point sink Fozzie said that CCP wanted
[22:58] <eustise> as a SP sink, i think there are better ways to do that
[22:59] <eustise> but this can legit make people get injectors that otherwise wouldn't
[23:00] <noxisia> seems like a complicated mechanic, that quasi encourages griefing. I see plenty of L4 tengu site runners. If you add injectors into the gank payout you swing the profitability.
[23:02] <sullen> that's a strait up horrible idea
[23:03] <sullen> for a lot of reasons
[23:03] <noxisia> I don't particularly see anything in the proposed changes that would make me pick up a HAC or Recon in place of a t3 for small, med, or large fleet work
[23:04] <noxisia> which kind of worries me; although the addition of mass and agility drawbacks are good... just not sure how severe they'll be
[23:04] <eustise> most of the big changes won't be in the current slot layout changes or the sub changes, but in the raw survivability changes
[23:04] <eustise> resists get tuned to t3d levels for one
[23:04] <eustise> very roughly sig will go up ~20%ish
[23:05] <eustise> plus the raw stat nerfs which i think will be the same 20%ish
[23:05] <noxisia> What I'm seeing from the changes is the 'incremental' changes that CCP has talked about for other ship classes like the Battleship
[23:05] <noxisia> Rather than the re-definition of the role (radically) like the T1 cruiser changes
[23:07] <noxisia> Now, I'm just going to throw this out there; if they wanted to go a more radical route.
[23:07] <noxisia> @noxisia shared a file: Copy of T3C Try3 https://ccpfocusgroups.slack.com/files/noxisia/F5L5A6ABU/copy_of_t3c_try3
[23:08] <noxisia> @noxisia shared a file: T3C Try2? https://ccpfocusgroups.slack.com/files/noxisia/F5LUZPD4N/t3c_try2_
[23:08] <noxisia> let me reshare the second one
[23:08] <noxisia> Just food for thought, since I'll admit they'd be pretty different than what we see now
[23:08] <eustise> we're locked in 3/3/3/3 for subsystems due to art
[23:09] <noxisia> ah
[23:09] <noxisia> that's a restriction I didn't really consider
[23:33] <noxisia> I'm finally done reading the backlogs. I'll post 2-3 of what I consider the most interesting points/questions I have.
[23:33] <noxisia> [11:38]
[23:34] <noxisia> I'm all for diferentiators as long as Command Ships retain superior overall effect.
[23:34] <noxisia> [16:57]
[23:34] <noxisia> Thoughts:
[23:34] <noxisia> Also interested in living out of a DST + T3 in wormhole space… that would be a fun way to do it if you could refit subsytems / rigs on the fly you could have a swiss army T3 for hunting/sites/relics any time.
[23:34] <noxisia> May 26th:
[23:34] <noxisia> 20:51]
[23:34] <noxisia> [20:51]
[23:34] <noxisia> [20:51]
[23:34] <noxisia> Thoughts:
[23:34] <noxisia> What about vanilla holes? Equal chance at any component?
[23:34] <noxisia> Is this a bonus to wormhole isk making? If so Can it be focused around lowclass wormholes primarily c1-c2 but also c3-4? These are the wormholes most sensitive to T3 prices now; i.e. nano-ribbons.
[23:34] <noxisia> Is this an effect to raise the price of T3s, additional components or just a rebalance of loot drops? If a raise to cost; then there should be some consideration around the strength of the ship - if it’s 400 mil to fit now and going to be 700 mil that should make at least a little bit of a difference?