[00:06] <eustise> living out nomading never really was that big of an issue regarding rigs, toss two resist rigs that you'd be tossing on anyway and your pick of dps/whatever for the third
[00:07] <eustise> and you can reliably carry about two half-fits worth of stuff, maybe even two whole fits if you skimp on storage space and rely on an alt for that
[00:07] <eustise> that's aside from what you can just toss in the alt itself
[00:17] <caprisunkraftfoods> I don't really think nomading is or has ever been much of a thing. The idea sounds a lot cooler than the practical reality.
[00:17] <eustise> that's all i done for a few years when my playtimes were irregular
[00:17] <caprisunkraftfoods> how long would you go without docking up
[00:18] <eustise> shrug, maybe a month?
[00:18] <eustise> whenever the loot cargohold filled up
[00:18] <caprisunkraftfoods> what on earth where you doing where you could go a month without docking lol
[00:18] <caprisunkraftfoods> in a T3?
[00:18] <caprisunkraftfoods> they have like ~300 m3 cargo lol
[00:19] <caprisunkraftfoods> I empty half my legion's cargo space of ammo in a single fight
[00:19] <eustise> a fuckloads of relics, datas, sleeper caches and ghost sites?
[00:19] <eustise> stuff that doesn't drop too much shit of large m3s
[00:20] <caprisunkraftfoods> also re making racial holes based on effect, you're just going to make whatever comes from a CV super expensive and whatever comes from a magnetar/pulsar/red giant super cheap
[00:21] <caprisunkraftfoods> theres already plenty incentive/disincentive on the bonuses of the effects themselves
[00:29] <titus.tallang> i believe we also discussed the point at the time and came to the conclusion that it's not going to have the effect initially outlined
[00:29] <titus.tallang> since most people don't farm their home, but rather their static
[00:32] <eustise> was the question posed why we need new mats for them?
[00:34] <titus.tallang> i believe price was mentioned as a factor that ccp believes is too low currently?
[00:41] <eustise> well, if we must, they'd be best arranged by class, that's something we have more control over
[06:14] <white0rchid> So just coming back around to this point again. The active tank bonuses on the cloaking sub. I understand that you probably don't want to give them passive as now the cloak has moved to defensive you can potentially get a lot of dps out of it and a fleet of passive tanked high dps cloaky ships sounds dangerous, BUT, currently passive is the only way you'd tank the hunter proteus. Mainly due to how weak ancillary armor reps are in comparison to the Tengus xlasb. Just tying to think if there is a way if preserving that role at all.
[06:15] <white0rchid> Also that ancillary armor reps use cap and asbs don't.
[06:15] <white0rchid> I'm not sure if something can be done there or if the loss of the hk prot is going to be inevitable
[06:16] <white0rchid> (Because I understand why it doesn't have active bonus)
[06:17] <white0rchid> Also, I've been talking with some friends and if their numbers are correct, can shield lokis really reach ~340k ehp
[06:17] <white0rchid> Because damn son
[06:17] <white0rchid> This was assuming T3d level resists
[09:30] <titus.tallang> do hk prots care about actually catching reps in a competitive manner, @white0rchid
[09:31] <titus.tallang> if not, this is something that could be addressed by giving the cloak sub appropriately increased amounts of structure hp (or shield?)
[09:31] <titus.tallang> that would keep their buffer high enough while making them worse for fleet combat
[11:11] <eustise> given explo spike damage matters, i'd also like the covertops sub to give some buffer, even if not necessarily armor
[11:15] <white0rchid> @titus.tallang the reason they go passive is so they fit big buffer, because active hk prot fits are just bad
[11:16] <white0rchid> not so much about catching reps really
[11:16] <white0rchid> Just 'Can I survive against a nid until my cyno goes down and I can warp off'
[11:16] <titus.tallang> so we could just give them high base structure and let people fit bulkheads or something?
[11:16] <titus.tallang> would that be feasible?
[11:17] <white0rchid> Possibly, if they get enough lows. It'll lower their agility a little more than a standard single plate fit I suspect?
[11:17] <titus.tallang> at least on the proteus it'd make thematic sense
[11:17] <titus.tallang> would depend on mass/agility balancing
[12:06] <noxisia> Structure +1
[12:26] <titus.tallang> so, i'm still thinking about the sp loss on death thing, and how to make it feel less shit while keeping the actual mechanic (since ccp seems like they want to keep it)
[12:26] <titus.tallang> how's this random idea
[12:27] <titus.tallang> "when a modular ship is destroyed, the sudden jolt causes some damage to the neural interface, which takes some time to repair. during this time, skill training is impacted slightly."
[12:27] <titus.tallang> or w/e lore reason you want to make up, i'm not the writer here
[12:27] <titus.tallang> effectively a booster-like -x SP/hr "debuff" for training
[12:28] <titus.tallang> for Y hours, so that it ends up being the same SP drawback as losing a skill, but you're not _actually_ losing a skill, so it doesn't feel like you're "redoing" something you've already trained
[12:33] <noxisia> I don't have an issue with that, but it seems like it affects newer players worse than vets. Once you hit 50 or 100 mil sp it's not like there's anything vital that you're missing out on.
[12:34] <noxisia> it can be fairly quick to get into a t3 for a newer player, and some do for ded sites, explo (though the strat's much more popular), or for pvp if they end up in a focused corp..
[12:53] <eustise> it'll still not be an SP sink, just an sp throttle
[12:55] <titus.tallang> that's the same thing though, @eustise
[12:56] <titus.tallang> if i "lose" 100 sp of training over 20 hours, that's the same as losing 2k sp
[12:56] <titus.tallang> in terms of SP in the system
[12:58] <noxisia> kind of; but you don't lose any effectiveness of the ship which is the real kick in the teeth
[12:59] <noxisia> and if you have a ton of skillpoints you don't really need to train a bunch
[13:00] <noxisia> I'm sitting over 100mil and I'm rarely concerned about whether I'm in the most efficient clone when I log off for the day or go on vacation -etc. I'm essentially throttling myself and don't care.
[13:03] <icarus_narcissus> I'm fairly certain a training throttling mechanic will be met with even more resistance than SP loss.
[13:04] <icarus_narcissus> because you can't put off the penalty
[13:05] <eustise> the only real issue with the SP drain that i see and which was brought up, is the fact that losing a skill in an PWG/CPU skill may make the fit inneffective
[13:06] <eustise> because, same, i don't know about anyone else, but losing a 3% bonus or something really isn't that crippling
[13:07] <eustise> and no single t3c fleet will lose the same subs
[13:13] <rowells> @white0rchid re: shield Loki
[13:13] <rowells> Yes and no. They can definitely reach 340k tank and further, but that's with current resists and a-type invuls.
[13:14] <rowells> Might be able to do the same with T3D resists and links. Don't have pyfa on me so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[13:39] <titus.tallang> @eustise that's being addressed already
[13:39] <titus.tallang> pg/cpu bonuses are turning into role bonuses, with the judgement still out on what'll replace them as the per level bonus
[13:39] <titus.tallang> i believe various cap bonuses were floated, such as 5% per level resistance to neuting
[13:43] <eustise> don't super think they /need/ to be replaced with something but neut resist will be neat
[13:45] <icarus_narcissus> @titus.tallang Not sure it's confirmed that's what's happening. It was just a suggestion.
[13:45] <eustise> aside from that, i'm a little concerned at how bloody good the jamgu will get, it'll still be a poorer support outright than a dedicated jam ship, but given an armor comp, there isn't anything to realistically use
[13:45] <titus.tallang> fozzie seemed to receive it positively at least
[13:45] <eustise> but now it'll get /all the buffs/
[13:46] <titus.tallang> 5 lows, too
[13:46] <titus.tallang> and being able to carry links while jamming
[13:46] <eustise> well, it already has 5 lows
[13:46] <titus.tallang> > Logi / ECM / Passive / Agility : 6H, 6M, 5L
[13:46] <eustise> i'm more concerned at the extra high which now can /also/ suit command bursts
[13:46] <titus.tallang> unbonused links admittedly
[13:46] <titus.tallang> but still
[13:47] <eustise> also with gratuious extra warpspeed
[13:47] <eustise> oh, and an extra 25mbit dronebay
[13:47] <eustise> for that extra ecm drones you want to throw out
[13:48] <eustise> the only thing it's losing is 10% range at level 5 sub
[13:48] <eustise> from losing 2.5% range per level from the dedicated sub now
[13:49] <icarus_narcissus> @titus.tallang What do you mean unbonused links? The Logi sub will provide link bonuses.
[13:49] <titus.tallang> yes but not armor links
[13:49] <icarus_narcissus> ah, yes
[13:49] <eustise> given it's a free upgrade to the current fit
[13:49] <eustise> i don't think beggars can be choosers
[13:49] <titus.tallang> so you're getting "just" getting info and skirmish
[13:49] <titus.tallang> which is still mighty powerful
[13:50] <icarus_narcissus> Well, if you put Info and SKirmish, you're putting a command processor on it, which will further hurt the potential for an armor tank
[13:51] <eustise> even if you outright take the current fit, plop the extra high with a skirmish and it's still a straight upgrade
[13:51] <titus.tallang> yeah, current ecmgu is flat out going +1 high, can fit burst(s)
[13:52] <eustise> and don't forget the 25mbit
[13:52] <titus.tallang> and gets a free range bonus too
[13:52] <titus.tallang> that it lacked before
[13:52] <eustise> no?
[13:52] <titus.tallang> ok true you could fit for it
[13:52] <titus.tallang> most people went for the sensor strength sub though
[13:52] <eustise> if you fit rifling and the whatsitcalled, you got both at the same time, and i think our fit actually had that
[13:53] <titus.tallang> obfuscation manifold, in electronics
[13:53] <titus.tallang> but dissolution sequencer gives sensor strength
[13:53] <eustise> in any case, yeah, now it's a no-brainer, and any range lost from the change is more than offset by a flight of EC-600s
[13:53] <titus.tallang> well, one thing worth noting though
[13:53] <titus.tallang> is that you lose the sensor strength from the old fit (if you had dissolution)
[13:53] <titus.tallang> since that's now mutually exclusive
[13:54] <eustise> yeah, that's true
[13:54] <eustise> but i'm not sure it's a bad thing altogether
[13:54] <eustise> i mean, put an info burst and there we go
[13:54] <titus.tallang> also i'm not sure if "you're now better at jamming, but get countered harder by....jams" is necessary a good thing
[13:54] <titus.tallang> but them again, fuck ecm
[13:55] <eustise> any way you slice it, this is not getting a downgrade
[13:55] <icarus_narcissus> Some capsuleers claim that ECM is "dishonorable" and "unfair". Jam those ones first, and kill them last. :wink:
[13:55] <eustise> then again, we are talking about a superniche armor ecm tengu
[13:55] <icarus_narcissus> and being good at superniche appears to be what CCP is going for
[13:56] <titus.tallang> it's not unfair, both sides can use it
[13:56] <icarus_narcissus> @titus.tallang It's just a lore quote
[13:56] <eustise> eh, fine, we'll gank fozzie with this when he gets back
[13:56] <titus.tallang> it's just shitty design because of how big the difference between "random success" and "random failure" is
[13:56] <titus.tallang> but eh let's not go there i think #capitals had like 2 days of scrollback just on how fucked ecm is
[13:56] <eustise> yeah, let's drop it at 'ecm just is'
[13:57] <titus.tallang> > 'ecm just is'
[13:57] <titus.tallang> shit
[13:57] <icarus_narcissus> Yeah, I think ECM need to be like Machariels. Yes it impacts what we are talking about, but no, it's not what we are talking about.
[14:07] <eustise> so, about the nullification targetting range penalty
[14:07] <eustise> what's everyone's oppinions on it
[14:08] <rowells> I care more about the final range than the amount needed itself
[14:08] <eustise> i mean, it's aimed squarely at petes as far as i can see
[14:08] <rowells> 40-50km is workable for what I do
[14:09] <rowells> Honestly, unless petes get pulled in closer than 200km they're still effective as is. Any more than that then their fits need adjustment
[14:10] <eustise> personally, pvpwise, i see the locking range something that can still get played around, especially given bursts
[14:11] <eustise> and it doesn't really 'scale' with what you're fighting
[14:11] <rowells> Haven't played with petes since bursts came out. Do they still need the links or do they work fine without?
[14:11] <eustise> it's been a while since i've been in a pete fleet myself, so i'll leave the hard math to someone else
[14:12] <eustise> i'm just wondering wether a scan resolution debuff would work better
[14:13] <rowells> It wouldn't be as effective as range. Takes longer to lock+kill but effectively that just reduces efficiency rather than capability
[14:14] <rowells> Closer they're force in the easier it is to smack them with longer range weapons
[14:14] <rowells> Lockspeed doesn't change the counters at all
[14:15] <rowells> Lockspeed also hurts nullified hunters a bit depending on how much scan res is reduced
[14:16] <eustise> between range and res, i guess it comes down to wheter you can cover the range distance faster than you would get snuffed by the scan res
[14:17] <rowells> At the ranges they operate, probably looking at 20-30km extra room for fast tackle unless they go ham-fisted on the nerf
[14:18] <eustise> hopefully @ccp_fozzie will be able to give us a rough number on what to look forward to on the locking range penalty on the nullification system
[14:18] <eustise> out of all the use cases, the range debuff will kind of hit the hardest on pve explo ships, which with a few wcss on, it already drops to 12-15km, and it takes almost as much to lock once you are in that range
[14:19] <rowells> Does the penalty stack?
[14:19] <eustise> not saying even res would help there much, but it just feels a lot more fidgety to micromanage targets
[14:21] <eustise> yes they do
[14:22] <noxisia> I'm happier with res loss than range loss
[14:22] <eustise> so with 4 wcs i get 20, 3, 22, 2, 29, 1 45
[14:22] <eustise> but that's all running off base
[14:24] <eustise> getting say a -50% penalty on the range from the nullification will get me down to 10-12 km
[14:24] <noxisia> with 4 wcs?
[14:24] <eustise> since i don't remember the bonuses from the subs to be penalty modified
[14:25] <noxisia> I mean, if you're hacking cans it's not the worst - the t1 frigs are similar if you stab them out
[14:25] <eustise> not really
[14:25] <eustise> sec
[14:25] <noxisia> are we talking explorers or pvp fits?
[14:25] <eustise> explorer atm
[14:25] <eustise> 2wcs fit explo frig is 21km
[14:26] <noxisia> so we're comparing 2wcs to 4? what's that on a magnate?
[14:26] <noxisia> since it can fit 4
[14:27] <noxisia> For hacking cans if the range doesn't fall under 6-7k is it a huge deal? Although I guess if it takes 10+ seconds to lock it may mean more time uncloaked in a site
[14:27] <rowells> Is that range + wcs count?
[14:28] <eustise> with t3cs, which can't get the sanic speeds of frigs, you start locking at your max range, and you get the can locked when you're about ready to flip off the analyzer
[14:29] <eustise> getting that range dropped significantly will mean you spend a fair bit more time per can
[14:30] <noxisia> I mean, it at least gives you an incentive to NOT fit wcs... but with the agility nerfs incoming I can see that as being a pretty steep hit to explorers
[14:30] <noxisia> especially if its to get away from gates, escape at a site
[14:31] <eustise> the most vulnerable time is when you're approaching or hacking a can
[14:31] <noxisia> I know, that's when I kill explorers
[14:31] <eustise> me too
[14:31] <eustise> :slightly_smiling_face:
[14:31] <noxisia> warp from a perch, call it a day
[14:31] <eustise> given if we keep the current ranges, maybe even slightly nerfed, 15% or so due to nullification
[14:32] <eustise> that'd be fineish
[14:32] <eustise> as long as the penalty is not too insane or if i'm remembering sub bonus penalty stacking wrong
[14:32] <icarus_narcissus> I think that range nerf is better than a scan res nerf
[14:33] <rowells> Ill be honest, I'm still trying to wrap my head around using that many stabs on a nullified ship
[14:33] <noxisia> we're trying to avoid sniper / LR nullified T3 fleets with this right.
[14:33] <noxisia> Same
[14:34] <rowells> I've put 2 on a prowler before but that's as far as it went
[14:34] <eustise> you'd be surprised how many people fit dual faction scrams
[14:34] <eustise> especially when we're talking a juicy defenceless t3c explo kill
[14:34] <eustise> 4 is enough to get away from pipecamps
[14:34] <noxisia> good info
[14:35] <eustise> where you just spawn too close to any of the campers
[14:35] <noxisia> you're getting a sig increase fitting nullified now as well
[14:35] <icarus_narcissus> Maulus Navy stealth buff?
[14:35] <noxisia> which seems like it justifies a not too extreme range nerf
[14:36] <eustise> i don't know if it's stupid to ask if the sizes, model sizes, of the ships will change
[14:36] <noxisia> I'd agree that 50% seems excessive to start and that 15% or 25% seems more reasonable?
[14:36] <eustise> yeah, it does
[14:36] <noxisia> because of sig/mass?
[14:36] <eustise> sig/mass/art
[14:36] <rowells> Well, wouldn't a scan res nerf and a range nerf have the same effective drawback on time locking cans?
[14:37] <noxisia> kind of, except if it's a scan res you can start locking while you're working on another can
[14:37] <eustise> if you go 1.2km/sec, i'd rather start locking earlier
[14:37] <rowells> Assuming both nerds are about equal
[14:37] <noxisia> heh
[14:37] <eustise> but yeah, i will admit
[14:37] <eustise> anything that will get explorers to drop more wc's would be a good thing
[14:38] <noxisia> Plus on a nullified pvp ship (Null) I'd assume that range wouldn't matter on tackle but scan res could kill the purpose of the ship
[14:38] <rowells> Yeah that was one of my concerns. Unless the range goes under point range
[14:38] <noxisia> but range would make it less practical in fleet applications
[14:38] <noxisia> which would, be good.
[14:39] <rowells> Assuming there are ways around the nerf I'm fine with that
[14:39] <eustise> would another penalty work? something more subtle like sig size?
[14:39] <noxisia> sig size is already included in the proposed nullification change
[14:40] <noxisia> lower lock range AND sig radius
[14:40] <rowells> Which probably hurts petes more than anything if it's big enough
[14:40] <noxisia> You also lose out on a slot compared to the other two propulsion sub systems
[14:40] <rowells> Depends on whether we hit good skills or scan implants territory
[14:40] <eustise> didn't catch that, are we talking a larger nullification change overall, or the current t3c sig changes overall
[14:41] <noxisia> I'm looking at fozzies spreadsheet
[14:41] <noxisia> +1 Low, Lower agility, Lower lock range, increased sig radius.
[14:41] <eustise> cute
[14:41] <noxisia> the null subsystem has 3 penalties
[14:41] <noxisia> currenlty
[14:41] <eustise> brain glanced over that
[14:41] <noxisia> no worries
[14:41] <noxisia> it's still a good discussion and it seems like we're ending up in the same place the devs were... which is actually mildly scary
[14:42] <eustise> well, in that case i don't think we need to worry about anything silly with the lock ranges
[14:42] <noxisia> right
[14:42] <noxisia> a minor-ish penalty is plenty
[14:42] <eustise> yeah
[14:43] <rowells> Add that on top of existing sig radius and mass/agility changes and I'm really curious how far they're going with it
[14:43] <icarus_narcissus> So, T3Cs in general are looking at +20% sig, and then the nullification rig will increase that further
[14:43] <rowells> Oh fuck RIP petes
[14:44] <eustise> yeah, pretty much it seems
[14:44] <rowells> Time to dust off the old rail-naga
[14:45] <noxisia> @icarus_narcissus That's what I'm taking from it
[14:45] <noxisia> and further decrease their agility from an unknown in coming agility nerf
[14:46] <icarus_narcissus> Yep
[14:46] <icarus_narcissus> Petes are ~probably~ dead
[14:46] <eustise> i'm worrying about the agility nerf
[14:47] <noxisia> Why? concerns about BS align time?
[14:47] <eustise> for explo specifically, you're losing the bonus off the nullification system, for one, 25% agility, then you're also getting the overal agility nerfbat
[14:48] <noxisia> do we know what the agility nerf is proposed?
[14:48] <noxisia> I mean it could be subtle
[14:48] <eustise> sure, standstill warping being affected is fine
[14:48] <eustise> more change to get decloaked
[14:48] <noxisia> right
[14:48] <eustise> however, it makes it triply difficult to get out of a site
[14:48] <eustise> already having a running vector et all
[14:49] <eustise> that's even if you get to turn off your mwd in time
[14:50] <noxisia> true, but it makes the case for t2 explo frigates - if you're more worried about gtfo. Plus it seems to me that there's a lot less bubbles across most of null / wh space because of the decay timers.
[14:50] <eustise> unrelated to explo, but they're still present where they hurted most
[14:50] <eustise> dead-end carrier-farm systems
[14:51] <eustise> if people want something cut off hard enough, they'll be fine with the current, what is it, 2weeks? decay time on a t2
[14:52] <noxisia> so it makes it easier to kill a HK b/c align time. and it makes explo content slightly more dangerous
[14:53] <noxisia> I mean, do we want to ask to get rid of the extra agility nerf? I'd like to see what the align time frames are before we try to play with it
[14:53] <noxisia> I think it's something we should get out a calculator for when it comes out
[14:53] <eustise> we can fix the explo side somewhat by giving it a novel analyzer range increase, from 6 to 10 or so, just to offset the amount of boat-turning you need to do while in can-range
[14:54] <eustise> you'll still need to close to 2.5k to grab the loots
[14:54] <eustise> but that can be managed better
[14:54] <eustise> you can pre-align through the range, grab, and scoot if something decloaks or etc
[14:55] <eustise> however, yeah, HK.. i mean you can fill the lows with inertial damps or nanos
[14:55] <noxisia> higgs riggs
[14:55] <noxisia> :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
[14:55] <eustise> right now, on my prot with the nullifiction bonus agility and two inertial stabs
[14:55] <eustise> i get 4.28s align
[14:56] <noxisia> if you take a 25% penalty off the bat and maybe a further 5-10% with the subsystem?
[14:56] <eustise> with what i'm expecting from the changes, that can jump up to 6-7 or so, and without them, bonus agility from null or mods, eesh, looks kind of bad
[14:58] <eustise> given agility is getting removed from nullifier and added to a separate prop mod sub
[14:58] <eustise> it's one or the other
[14:58] <noxisia> seems like it'd be a buff to shield since plates would further crush your align time
[14:58] <eustise> it makes fantastic sense and i'm glad for it since it was a touch OP
[14:59] <noxisia> ofc if you're getting an additional sig buff and you're shield fit you'll also be hosed
[14:59] <noxisia> *shrug* I can't say I dislike the nullification change overall. agility may be extreme once the base stats are released but we won't know until then.
[14:59] <eustise> yeah, same, more worrying than actual complaints
[15:11] <icarus_narcissus> Well, basically what Fozzie said is that right now the Nulli subsystem has an innate align time penalty and the skill bonus brings it back to normal, so I don't expect we'll see too much of a change from what you might expect now with Prop 3 or 4
[15:12] <eustise> yeah, you're right, forgot that little tidbid, but we'll still get the overall agility hit
[15:13] <eustise> but in that case, it means that the agility from the new sub, will work like it did with the nulli, more or less offsetting the nerfs that are incoming
[15:13] <icarus_narcissus> Which just raised a huge question for me... @ccp_fozzie
[15:13] <icarus_narcissus> Right now, Tech 3 subsystems have innate values for Powergrid, CPU, Align Time, etc which are applied to the hull, which is a blank slate initially.
[15:13] <icarus_narcissus> The way it sounds, is CCP heading towards the hull having innate values and the subsystems simply modifying those values?
[15:19] <titus.tallang> in my opinion, that'd be a good thing
[15:19] <titus.tallang> the result is the same, while clarity is improved
[15:19] <noxisia> agree
[15:19] <eustise> base hulls already have a number of stats, armor hp, inertia, mass etc
[15:20] <noxisia> but w/subsystems right now showing +6 highs... seems like slot layout is largely dependent on subs.
[15:21] <icarus_narcissus> @eustise they start with 100 armor, 100 shield, around 1.5k Hull, 10m/s, 150m sig radius, 100GJ of cap, and 400 calibration
[15:22] <icarus_narcissus> not exactly a functional ship :stuck_out_tongue:
[15:24] <exooki> im all for making cloaky nullified t3s easier to catch
[15:25] <exooki> id hope that they get a bit slower, not just nerfed, then brought bright back with skills, that makes the lvl bonus feel pointless
[15:33] <eustise> if i'm getting this right, agility nerfs aside nullified will get to be roughly like a level 1 prop skill nullified ship currently
[15:34] <eustise> so 'innately nerfed' compared to the rest of the prop subs
[15:34] <eustise> and it won't be brought back by skills
[15:43] <eustise> so in that case, the ab mod will get the standard brunt of the overall agility nerf and the agility prop mod would roughly be bringing the ship to current 'standard' t3c agility
[15:44] <exooki> id like to see a align slow enough you have a real chance of decloaking a t3 in their current form I believe they are too safe
[15:44] <sturm_gewehr> @ccp_fozzie I like the proposed slot layout for the passive, web, turret, speed/agility loki. It adds a single mid over live for 7/5/5 instead of 7/4/5. In addition to the triple application bonuses it could be a pretty mean ship.
[15:44] <sturm_gewehr> The passive, web, link, ab loki looks like a real problem though. 8 mids, 3 lows could unlock brick tanked, linked, lr web shield lokis, possibly even with 100mn ab. There could be plenty of mod slots to compensate for the lost bonuses of the other subs.
[15:44] <eustise> @exooki they are
[15:45] <starfleetcommander> @sturm_gewehr i was looking at the 8 slot loki aswell
[15:45] <sturm_gewehr> Again stats are important but it is an 8 mid recon that can seld buff it's ewar.
[15:45] <eustise> but given the ruminations i've just had, a nullified t3c will be /much/slower
[15:45] <starfleetcommander> 8 mids
[15:45] <sturm_gewehr> It is too strong at 8 mids, not even sure 7 mids 4 lows would make it okay.
[15:45] <starfleetcommander> brick tank loki will be a thing
[15:46] <sturm_gewehr> Because you can use fitting mods, sig amp, etc to help compensate for weaknesses from other sub bonuses.
[15:46] <starfleetcommander> yep, lots of versatility
[15:46] <starfleetcommander> 100mn shield webbing loki
[15:46] <starfleetcommander> with a huge buffer
[15:46] <sturm_gewehr> With links.
[15:46] <starfleetcommander> with links
[15:46] <starfleetcommander> yeah lol
[15:47] <sturm_gewehr> Could be a serious menace.
[15:47] <eustise> and warp speed
[15:47] <eustise> same matter with tengu we discussed earlier
[15:47] <sturm_gewehr> If we dropped a mid for a low you would get 6 lows for a lot of the sov fits which starts to unlock brick tanked lokis more for armor.
[15:48] <sturm_gewehr> May just need to remove the mid from the logi/link sub, or something.
[15:48] <sturm_gewehr> Unless large scale people are okay with 6 lows on web loki.
[15:49] <starfleetcommander> 6 lows
[15:49] <starfleetcommander> hmm 1sec
[15:50] <starfleetcommander> maybe
[15:50] <starfleetcommander> could be on the verge of being abit to strong
[15:51] <sturm_gewehr> I misspoke.
[15:51] <sturm_gewehr> The 6 lows isn't possible with AB and armor.
[15:52] <sturm_gewehr> 5 low for armor web loki is with the non ab sub which gives 2 lows.
[15:53] <starfleetcommander> okay that seems resonable
[15:53] <sturm_gewehr> So changing the agi/speed sub to 1/1 could give it 6 lows, but changing the ab sub to be 1/1 would give link web loki 7/4
[15:53] <sturm_gewehr> And give non link fits 6/4.
[15:55] <sturm_gewehr> It would give 6 lows to pg 100mn fits though, which could make 100mn missile loki a solid option.
[15:55] <sturm_gewehr> With 1/1 on the ab sub.
[15:56] <sturm_gewehr> Again, depends a lot on final stats.
[15:57] <sturm_gewehr> I would like to hear thoughts from everyone about changing loki AB/mwd bloom sub to 1/1 instead of 2 mid.
[16:01] <rowells> Would a 100mn Loki even have enough range to utilize its missiles properly?
[16:02] <sturm_gewehr> Sure.
[16:02] <starfleetcommander> i think that would be a good balance change
[16:02] <sturm_gewehr> Historically, in small scale, 100mn close range fits are a thing as well.
[16:02] <starfleetcommander> the 100mn loki will mainly be only used for webs
[16:02] <starfleetcommander> yeah or that
[16:02] <sturm_gewehr> Or as an armor active 100mn hml/ham ship.
[16:02] <starfleetcommander> and its dps will just be extra
[16:03] <starfleetcommander> yeah
[16:03] <starfleetcommander> that would be viable
[16:03] <rowells> Never seen a close range 100mn for before. So idk
[16:03] <sturm_gewehr> Which could actually be solid for us given the loki having a good missile sub.
[16:03] <rowells> The dream is real
[16:03] <sturm_gewehr> But this is all without knowing the stats, but the range on the missiles is fine.
[16:04] <starfleetcommander> 100mn hamgus
[16:04] <frsd> 100mn hamgus have like 60km range
[16:04] <rowells> Does the 7-8mid Loki use the sensor strength sub?
[16:04] <sturm_gewehr> But yeah people do 100mn cynabal and vagabond, even Garmon did 100mn zealot lol. Hml/hams on loki are fine, can even add missile comps and shit now.
[16:04] <starfleetcommander> if you want to use faction yeah
[16:04] <starfleetcommander> but if you wanna go full in
[16:04] <sturm_gewehr> No, 7 or 8 mid is with web sub.
[16:05] <sturm_gewehr> I mean right now, pre changes we are proposing, the sensor strength sun gives 7 mids.
[16:05] <rowells> Gonna have to see the targeting range then. Otherwise 2-3 of those kids are used for webs sebo. 7 sounds close to right tho
[16:05] <sturm_gewehr> With links and AB sub.
[16:06] <sturm_gewehr> Web and sensor strength are the same sub type.
[16:06] <rowells> Iirc lock range is like ~60km by itself
[16:06] <rowells> Whish is an issue I already run into on my current armor version
[16:07] <rowells> (Btw I'm heavy pro-Loki biased so take some salt with me)
[16:07] <sturm_gewehr> The issue with 8 mid, 3 lows is that you can take fitting that could go to highs and beef up the tank and use things like sig amps, sebos, etc. to mitigate counterplay
[16:08] <sturm_gewehr> One advantage recons have over t3 recons is t3 recons are much easier to jam and damp.
[16:08] <rowells> Yeah, 8 mids is probably too much, but if sensors aren't beefed up then it's super easy to deal with in mid to large scale fleets
[16:08] <starfleetcommander> and bonus tp
[16:08] <rowells> Oh that's right I wanted to talk about secondary ewar after this
[16:09] <sturm_gewehr> But 2 sig amps in the lows with a web, ab and 6 slot tank could be pretty big for large scale.
[16:09] <starfleetcommander> defo
[16:09] <starfleetcommander> very strong in that context
[16:09] <starfleetcommander> in that situation you woul favour a large tank over fitting guns
[16:09] <sturm_gewehr> And you have a link as well.
[16:10] <sturm_gewehr> Or 3.
[16:10] <rowells> When you say 6-slot tank do you mean 6 total or 8 - web/AB?
[16:10] <sturm_gewehr> 6 hardeners/extenders, 1 web, 1 ab.
[16:10] <starfleetcommander> 6 mids for tank not including web or ab
[16:10] <starfleetcommander> yes
[16:10] <sturm_gewehr> So 6 slots of tank.
[16:10] <rowells> Ah ok that makes more sense now
[16:11] <sturm_gewehr> For secondary bonus, to improve design space without potentially going overboard with power, what about bonus to ewar drones for the ewar subs?
[16:11] <rowells> 5-slot tank is already pretty strong now. Depending on how resists and shield hp work out I'd have no issue with 5
[16:11] <rowells> Personally don't like it
[16:11] <starfleetcommander> dont think they get a bonus to ewar drones? am i wrong?
[16:11] <starfleetcommander> could work
[16:11] <rowells> Don't think any ewar drones are bonuses
[16:12] <sturm_gewehr> I am putting it out as an idea.
[16:12] <starfleetcommander> oh right
[16:12] <frsd> doesn't fix the problem ewar drones have with stacking
[16:12] <rowells> I'd have to see it in practice but I have strong doubts it would be very useful
[16:12] <sturm_gewehr> It's not supposed to be super strong
[16:12] <rowells> It wouldn't even be strength that I'm worried about
[16:13] <rowells> Just general drone useage issues vs modules
[16:13] <sturm_gewehr> It's more for flavor, potential utility.
[16:13] <suitonia> Ewar drones will always be dogshit because they are stacking penalised with eachother.
[16:13] <sturm_gewehr> ^exactly
[16:14] <sturm_gewehr> I mean bonuse neut drones on legion could be super strong.
[16:14] <ccp_fozzie> I'd be a bit hesitant trying to tie a bonus to ewar drones for the reasons you guys have already stated
[16:14] <sturm_gewehr> In contexts without smartbombs
[16:14] <sturm_gewehr> And it would give small scale some extra options as well where the drones won't be Insta deleted.
[16:15] <suitonia> Ewar drones need to be revisited at some point, it's probably a bad idea to tie bonuses to them before they're polished.
[16:15] <rowells> Small scale it could be useful, but that's a _could_ on specific use-cases
[16:15] <sturm_gewehr> The idea is to add a little to the t3 class without taking up too much power budget.
[16:15] <sturm_gewehr> And give some niche/unique options.
[16:16] <sturm_gewehr> But not make it a defining thing.
[16:16] <frsd> you'd be making ecm drones even more annoying, and the others still wouldn't be used
[16:16] <eustise> there's nothing niche about a 25mbit drone bay on a jamgu :P i see ecm drones there
[16:16] <rowells> I only see it being useful in small-gang shield stuff where midslots are too important to give up
[16:17] <sturm_gewehr> Neut and web drones would see use in small scale.
[16:17] <rowells> But yu _really_ want some paint
[16:17] <sturm_gewehr> Damps and TDs less so.
[16:17] <sturm_gewehr> TPs maybe.
[16:17] <rowells> Oh, all drones?
[16:17] <sturm_gewehr> I said ewar drones, as in all of them, not just ecm.
[16:17] <rowells> I was thinking race-specific
[16:18] <sturm_gewehr> But it could make some of them good enough to actually be viable.
[16:18] <sturm_gewehr> Same rowells.
[16:18] <rowells> But all drones is better
[16:18] <rowells> Still not sold but I like it better
[16:19] <rowells> Fuck you could make a totally cancerous ewar boat with that
[16:19] <rowells> Web + paint + damp + neut + ECM drone loki
[16:19] <sturm_gewehr> It's not an idea I am married to, just trying to expand design space and give some use to game assets not currently popular/viable.
[16:20] <suitonia> I don't like the idea because you are going to limit future design of ewar drones (if they ever get polished) and make them exlusive to T3Cs.
[16:20] <suitonia> Right now ECM drones are the only ones that get used right now for good reason, if you give T3C bonuses enough power so that they are viable, then this will prevent you from modifying or changing the drones so they are useful on anything other than T3Cs in the future without having to retroactively come back and change that bonus.
[16:20] <noxisia> I'd agree with suitonia on that
[16:20] <noxisia> I'd rather see ecm drones made useful at a later point
[16:20] <suitonia> You are taking away future design space
[16:20] <noxisia> and not give them a niche in the t3cs
[16:21] <sturm_gewehr> You can always roll back bonuses to compensate buffs.
[16:21] <noxisia> T3s don't really need it
[16:21] <sturm_gewehr> And some of the drones don't need that big of a bonus anyways.
[16:21] <eustise> the fact that ewarboats can selfbuff with bursts is another thing, it's cool to have that support availible, but between neuts/bombs in highs, ewar in meds and tank in low
[16:22] <eustise> it seems a bit too much ship
[16:23] <sturm_gewehr> I think the concerns are justified depending on the numbers, but I am not convinced it will reduce future design around ewar drones.
[16:23] <sturm_gewehr> Again, depending on numbers.
[16:24] <ccp_fozzie> the concern about dedicated ewar boats being a bit too strong with the support subsystem is definitely something valid to think about
[16:26] <frsd> since link t3s aren't able to do any dps by themselves they are kind of being pushed into that role
[16:26] <eustise> i like the idea of a generalised support ship, and they'll never replace lachs and curses and falcons, let alone CSs, but fitting will need to be tight to force out plated, ecm bonused, skirmish buffing, neuting tengus
[16:26] <noxisia> @frsd I saw sullen mention that we could add some turret slots to those subs?
[16:26] <sturm_gewehr> I love the hybrid recon/support concept.
[16:27] <noxisia> and it sounded like fozzie agreed
[16:27] <sturm_gewehr> But it needs to be watched closely.
[16:27] <ccp_fozzie> one potential tool we can use is to give the support subsystem less base fitting but add a fitting reduction for remote reps
[16:27] <ccp_fozzie> so your RR fits stay the same but you don't get quite as much extra free fitting by skipping the rr
[16:27] <sturm_gewehr> It's hard to give much more feedback without seeing stats.
[16:28] <noxisia> @ccp_fozzie I'd be careful with shields though - with the current bonus large shield reps will go out quite far...
[16:28] <eustise> that would be neat, making sure highs get the proper use, but also a watch on cap regen needs to be held
[16:28] <noxisia> and it's not too hard to fit an oversized shield rep
[16:28] <noxisia> armor is 1/2 of what a guardian range is but it doesn't seem that way for shield unless the spreadsheet is incorrect?
[16:29] <rowells> Shield has no optimal bonus
[16:29] <rowells> About the same falloff tho iirc
[16:29] <frsd> shield falloff bonus is 550%
[16:29] <frsd> compared to 1300%
[16:29] <frsd> for armor
[16:29] <frsd> so that's fine
[16:30] <rowells> Yeah I think the optimals is what differentiates them from logistics ships
[16:31] <ccp_fozzie> we can potentially even just give the fitting bonus to medium reps
[16:31] <rowells> Oh yummy
[16:31] <ccp_fozzie> if we feel that larges might cause a problem with a fitting bonus
[16:31] <eustise> yeah, neat
[16:33] <frsd> alot of these problems would go away if we switched the rr/link sub back to defensive, gave it like a resist or weaker hp bonus than the passive one and put cloaking back to offensive
[16:33] <frsd> would also get rid of too tank t3 logi
[16:33] <sullen> interesting. what was the reasoning behind having the 2 different falloffs?
[16:33] <suitonia> It's mostly flavor
[16:33] <suitonia> Shield have smaller optimals but bigger falloffs
[16:33] <ccp_fozzie> @sullen because the base optimal and falloff values are so different for shield and armor reps
[16:33] <suitonia> armor have bigger optimals but smaller falloffs
[16:34] <noxisia> 66km (74km) for larges 1x falloff for t2 shields right? If it's 8km +12 falloff for large t2 shields. 5.5 x 12km is 66km and you get 74km 80% rep strength?
[16:34] <ccp_fozzie> take a look at logi frigates for a similar case study
[16:34] <sullen> ah
[16:34] <sullen> makes sense
[16:34] <sullen> just wanted to clearify
[16:35] <sturm_gewehr> Another concern brought to my attention "legion with EHP/CAP/LINK/SPEED subs gets 6H 3M 8L with 19+47km remote reps"
[16:35] <sturm_gewehr> 8l 3 mid is potentially really bonkers.
[16:35] <eustise> @frsd given 3/3/3/3 locking, we'd need to move cloak there, and that causes other issues
[16:36] <icarus_narcissus> So, looking at this and seeing this as a small corp person, I see the Tech 3 "support" ship being a real tool to assist a smaller group, in larger groups, the ships with stronger role bonuses make more sense, but if you can only get 10 or so people into a fleet, these ships could be valuable. The key will be making sure they aren't too powerful and become better than say a dedicated logi, command, or ewar platforms once you have enough people to fill those roles.
[16:36] <noxisia> 9km x 5.5 = 49.5km + 6km (optimal) so 80% out to 55.5km which seems a little more reasonable for T2 medium shields.
[16:36] <sturm_gewehr> The low/mid slots from support sub seem potentially dangerous.
[16:37] <eustise> @icarus_narcissus, nah, their produce weaker effects per ship
[16:37] <eustise> at potentially even lower ehp
[16:37] <noxisia> They still seem better than dedicated ewar platforms
[16:37] <noxisia> not better at logi / command
[16:37] <sturm_gewehr> 8 lows on legion will be extremely difficult to deal with in small scale.
[16:37] <rowells> 80%?
[16:37] <ccp_fozzie> @sturm_gewehr yeah if we decide they're causing a problem then either removing them or moving them to a high and adjusting the logi bonuses to compensate would both be options
[16:38] <eustise> no way, compare falcom bonuses to t3c
[16:38] <noxisia> @rowells 1x falloff is 80% effectiveness
[16:38] <sturm_gewehr> Just something to be aware of as we start adding stats.
[16:38] <ccp_fozzie> well the legion in this version doesn't need the logi sub to get 8L
[16:38] <eustise> they're miles apart
[16:38] <ccp_fozzie> the legion logi sub actually gives a mid
[16:38] <rowells> I thought falloff was 50%
[16:38] <sturm_gewehr> 3 mids in conjunction with 8 lows is huge.
[16:39] <icarus_narcissus> @ccp_fozzie Is CCP happy with the current state of recons? If so, some of the t3cs may need to be toned back. Personally, I feel that recons are still a bit lackluster for their intended role.
[16:39] <sturm_gewehr> 2 mids 8 lows is a significant difference as it removes options like dual prop, sebo, etc.
[16:39] <noxisia> yes, I remembered that number incorrectly
[16:39] <noxisia> @rowells
[16:39] <rowells> Ah ok
[16:39] <suitonia> Recons had a balance pass in the Proteus expansion approx 2 years ago
[16:39] <icarus_narcissus> If another recon re-balance pass could be coming again down the road, these numbers make sense.
[16:39] <suitonia> so they are fairly up to date
[16:40] <ccp_fozzie> @icarus_narcissus we're limiting the scope of these changes to T3Cs, otherwise it'll never be manageable to release
[16:40] <icarus_narcissus> I know they got passed on, but they do still feel to be lackluster
[16:40] <sturm_gewehr> I think that 3 mids 7 lows may be a more ideal layout for that legion.
[16:40] <icarus_narcissus> @ccp_fozzie I agree with that entirely, I meant down the road.
[16:40] <suitonia> Would it be possible to have a Optimal/Falloff ewar penalty? Similar to the Navy Ewar frigates but less extreme
[16:41] <suitonia> to maybe keep dedicated ewar more about range, and T3Cs more about ewar+other things
[16:42] <noxisia> if you could do something like the navy ewar - i would say a range penalty but no strength - otherwise you kill another ships niche
[16:43] <icarus_narcissus> If you have a range penalty and no strength... why not just use an unbonused ship?
[16:43] <icarus_narcissus> to keep the range?
[16:43] <noxisia> I mean there's already ewar subs
[16:44] <sturm_gewehr> In general, removing/moving a low to mid somewhere on the legion is something to look into going forward, passive tank, cap/pg and base speed subs get 2 mids.
[16:44] <noxisia> so they're better than an unbonused ship
[16:44] <noxisia> i guess i'm thinking ecm
[16:44] <noxisia> since you get strength
[16:44] <noxisia> but web strength isn't increased with the loki only range.
[16:46] <eustise> @suitonia keep in mind, i haven't checked the others, but ECM sub is losing 10% range as is
[16:46] <frsd> falloff webs would be interesting
[16:48] <noxisia> I mean, if we feel recons are getting another pass in the quasi near future we don't take into consideration their glaring deficincies?
[16:52] <noxisia> We would still want to makes HACs feel some love right?
[16:55] <eustise> @ccp_fozzie can we get a ruling on flat role-bonusing the PWG/CPU buffs? That would really solve a large tangible issue that people have with the SP-drain system
[16:55] <ccp_fozzie> balance isn't a destination it's a process
[16:56] <ccp_fozzie> @eustise I'm leaning towards making that switch yeah
[16:56] <ccp_fozzie> interested in hearing any more opinions you folks have on the idea
[16:56] <eustise> yeah, less efficiency is one thing, but a binary loss of ability is another
[16:58] <noxisia> it makes sense to me; does anyone think that you'd see a lot more people flying with the subsystems to 4 since that's a relatively fast train and you don't obsolete any fits by not having everything to 5?
[16:58] <noxisia> You decrease the need to have the skills at 5 people are less likely to train them to 5
[16:58] <eustise> i don't think anyone wants to start scavanging for meta 4s to replace t2s when they find out their fit doesn't fit anymore and their dudes are dying outside
[16:59] <icarus_narcissus> ^ that
[16:59] <rowells> You'll see people train 4/5 depending on the perceived value after that
[16:59] <rowells> Like for most other subs
[17:00] <eustise> yeah, the 'need' for 5/5s will go away, at least for that sub
[17:00] <eustise> and you'll also see less 'whining' for losing a level 4 skill, than a level 5
[17:00] <noxisia> no doubt
[17:01] <eustise> while still keeping the level 5 there for the dudes that feel they need that extra edge
[17:01] <noxisia> but you essentially reduce the penalty somewhat by not requiring it
[17:01] <noxisia> and I'm hearing that works; I just want to make sure we want that as a trade-off
[17:02] <eustise> allowing mastery but also allowing a certain level of 'good enough' is part of the Eve mantra
[17:02] <eustise> you /can/ train that Graviton Physics 5 if you /really/ want
[17:02] <noxisia> right but I'm not going to lose graviton physics 5 when my HIC dies.
[17:03] <noxisia> so that 30 day train is a one time deal
[17:03] <noxisia> if I'm training for 3-5 days to be able to get back into a ship vs. 24-36 hours to move it back from 3 to 4
[17:03] <noxisia> that's an effective reduction in the penalty
[17:03] <noxisia> and of course there will be people that have it to 5 because they see the value
[17:03] <eustise> just saying that with people mostly training it to 4, the loss will be what, two days? while allowing 5 for people that want that extra 5% cap or wahtever
[17:05] <noxisia> Right, I'm for this - but you kind of have to admit that this is almost a hat tip to getting rid of sp loss. You're effectively reducing the penalty by reducing the need.
[17:06] <eustise> and yet, we can't figure out a reason why we wouldn't want this
[17:06] <noxisia> yeah, I'm for it but I'm saying we're looking down a tunnel we decided we didn't want to go down
[17:06] <ccp_fozzie> if we have sub bonuses otherwise that people absolutely don't care about then it's an issue
[17:06] <ccp_fozzie> but as long as there's a good choice to be made there with real tradeoffs, it seems ok to me
[17:07] <eustise> personally, given the cap intensive fits i get to fly, i'll prolly have cap to 5 anyway
[17:08] <eustise> but then again, i felt the sp loss to be annoying but fair
[17:08] <noxisia> I'm good, like I said - I agree. But I think we need to be critical of our thought processes. In that vein I appreciate the discussion.
[17:09] <eustise> however, if we are to compare it to the other subs, you get more bang out of the buck per level
[17:09] <noxisia> right 10% drone damage 5% drone tracking / velocity per level is a big reason to train i tto 5
[17:10] <eustise> i think we were talking of also adding some neut resistence to them to compensate?
[17:10] <eustise> for PWG at least
[17:11] <noxisia> honestly - even if the tanks are pretty toned down when this all comes about... that'd be a neat effect for both pvp and pve
[17:11] <noxisia> and it'd give them a niche that HACs / Recons / Logi can't fill
[17:12] <caprisunkraftfoods> you guys should really try to keep your points succinct and not argue round in circles. I just read the last 480 lines of scrollback and not a single that's been said is new besides the ewar drone point. It's just talking to talk. Not that discussion isn't valuable, you just don't want to lose actual constructive discussion in pages upon pages of beating a dead horse over points that have been 700 times
[17:12] <noxisia> a neut resistant neuting legion would be a monster though
[17:13] <caprisunkraftfoods> no hate, just it's not constructive :heart:
[17:14] <icarus_narcissus> Mmhmm
[17:14] <noxisia> *shrugs* then go back and pin what you consider the relative points
[17:14] <noxisia> and then you at least have a reference
[17:21] <eustise> my personal list of issues copy pasted out of my working document which i think are important to bring up, even before we get a good look on hard stats:
[17:21] <eustise> - nullification locking range penalty (how much penalty? stacking/nonstacking with modules)
[17:21] <eustise> - ehp needed for a cloaky doing sites (a lot of structure hp on the cloaking module?)
[17:21] <eustise> - baking in probe bonuses in the hull (for FCing)
[17:22] <eustise> - removing cpu/pwg from skills to flat role bonuses
[17:22] <eustise> - armor jamgu too op (entire ewar sub?), 25mbit new drone bay +bursts +warp speed bonus
[17:24] <icarus_narcissus> So, if my math is right:
[17:24] <icarus_narcissus> Falcon/Rook = +150% ECM Strength, -50% ECM Activation Cost
[17:24] <icarus_narcissus> New Tengu Cold = +50% ECM Strength, +50% ECM Range
[17:24] <icarus_narcissus> New Tengu Hot = +102.5% ECM Strength, +50% ECM Range
[17:27] <icarus_narcissus> Granted, first time I've ever tried to do a bonused overheat math by hand
[17:27] <ccp_fozzie> looks correct to me
[17:27] <ccp_fozzie> and falcon/rook are +200% heated
[17:27] <titus.tallang> let me make a gdoc
[17:29] <titus.tallang> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jXdgESmH3jVv-eegeWcaoLqqBQybMmh0w_E-6Iut2Bo/edit toss me your google account if you want edit access
[17:30] <titus.tallang> (in dm due to logging)
[17:30] <rowells> So I asked this before and didn't hear anything about it, is there any concern about the impact of the mass increase (and the nullified mass increase) will have on use in blops?
[17:31] <ccp_fozzie> @eustise on your points above:
[17:31] <ccp_fozzie> - Not sure on how much lower the lock range will be yet. It will likely take the form of lower base values rather than a bonus
[17:31] <ccp_fozzie> - Will definitely be something to keep an eye on, plan is currently for at least a decent amount of hull and we can tweak as needed
[17:31] <ccp_fozzie> - At first glance I like the idea of baking the CPU reduction bonus into the hull, it would be too strong to bake the probe strength bonus in though. Something to think about and discuss.
[17:31] <ccp_fozzie> - As mentioned above, leaning that way.
[17:31] <ccp_fozzie> - Definitely something to keep an eye on. We have a lot of ways of adjusting it if needed (reduce bonuses, remove dronebay, changes to base stats)
[17:32] <ccp_fozzie> @rowells that'll be part of the motivation to keep any mass increases modest
[17:33] <titus.tallang> @titus.tallang pinned a message to this channel.
[17:33] <titus.tallang> [May 31st, 2017 7:29 PM] titus.tallang: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jXdgESmH3jVv-eegeWcaoLqqBQybMmh0w_E-6Iut2Bo/edit toss me your google account if you want edit access
[17:34] <titus.tallang> just jot down talking points you feel are relevant to keep track of over there so we have a permanent record
[17:34] <titus.tallang> since not everyone is going to realistically keep up with full scrollback all the time
[17:38] <rowells> Ah ok good to hear. And on that probe fitting bonus, if it's a mirror of the T3D bonus (no scan strength changes) then I would be super-happy. I've always made an effort to try and use it when I can under current subs.
[17:41] <ccp_fozzie> Yeah it's not something that I had thought about doing previously but now that @eustise mentioned it I'm liking it so far
[17:41] <icarus_narcissus> That's what these focus groups are for :smile:
[17:41] <ccp_fozzie> would essentially enshrine that as a T3 trait
[17:42] <eustise> we're already getting a 'free' high, might as well, and it's done pretty well on T3Ds, not breaking anyhting
[17:43] <ccp_fozzie> I've had meetings and work on unblocking the work of the graphics folks all day today so no significant progress on getting the stats themselves into a real form, but my hope is for that to happen over the next two days
[17:44] <icarus_narcissus> Quick hit random question: Will T3s lose their killmarks due to the conversion?
[17:44] <ccp_fozzie> ooh, good question
[17:44] <ccp_fozzie> probably not, but I'd need to investigate more to be sure
[17:44] <titus.tallang> those are tied to the base "hull", so shouldn't be
[17:44] <titus.tallang> not to the subs
[17:44] <ccp_fozzie> the base ship itself isn't changing typeIDs
[17:45] <ccp_fozzie> we're just swapping the subs on patch day
[17:45] <ccp_fozzie> but computers are magic so no promises quite yet
[17:45] <eustise> i'm working with Signal Cartel to get some harder numbers on what would effectively be needed for the explo sites, but without affecting tank too much, it will really depend how much structure we'll need, even with resistences and such
[17:47] <rowells> That reminds me, someone was mentioning the passive tank on a HK proteus being problematically low, what about adding a hull resist bonus to the covert sub to compensate in some form?
[17:48] <titus.tallang> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jXdgESmH3jVv-eegeWcaoLqqBQybMmh0w_E-6Iut2Bo/edit <- yes :stuck_out_tongue:
[17:48] <eustise> hull resist bonus would be pretty great, however i really fear that weirdly enough, the cloak sub would become the 'tanking' sub
[17:48] <exooki> i think the better questions are under the new fittings, whast the best you could get? and how does it compare with where we want it to end up?
[17:48] <titus.tallang> well, structure tank wouldn't hold up under repairs
[17:48] <titus.tallang> it'd be a "one-time buffer" bonus without making it competitive in longer combat situations
[17:48] <exooki> i believe it is intentional that passive HK tanks are a lot weaker, just unsure how much we want
[17:49] <titus.tallang> problem is that armor lacks the strong active capabilities of XLASB
[17:49] <eustise> you don't really 'rep' explo damage, just take your time with it later, the only real time you may want to rep throug would be superior archives
[17:49] <exooki> needing to structure tank them kind of removes any sort of fitting play though
[17:49] <eustise> but personally i'm the kind of guy that just puts a buttload of buffer on it
[17:49] <exooki> theres pretty much only 1 way to hull tank
[17:49] <exooki> max lows, bulkheads, DC. every t3's low slots
[17:50] <eustise> atm i'm rawing 60k for ghost explosions and npcs if memory serves, and roughly 100k for the archives
[17:51] <titus.tallang> also send me your gmail account in dms if you want edit access to that doc
[17:51] <titus.tallang> i can't keep track of everything that's being discussed (nor can i represent all arguments equally well)
[17:54] <rowells> It's pretty much the same with an armor tank as well. I'm not sure of the specifics of why it's too low or whatnot, but the hull option fits the race and adds a less consequential option
[17:56] <titus.tallang> armor tank has variance in hardener choice etc
[17:57] <titus.tallang> structure tank is: add dc2, stack bulkheads
[17:57] <eustise> given removable rigs, we could add transversals
[17:57] <eustise> since we wouldn't need resistences in the rigs
[17:57] <titus.tallang> but those are also a single choice rig
[17:57] <titus.tallang> it's the only rig that benefits structure tank
[17:58] <titus.tallang> at least that's what it feels like to me, would love more input from the people that actively use these things
[17:58] <rowells> Effectively all it would do is make those hp additions stronger per pound, assuming armor tank isn't/shouldn't be too strong but strong tank is needed/wanted
[18:01] <eustise> the issue with structure tanking for explo, is bulkheads cut into cargo
[18:02] <titus.tallang> is that potentially an interesting tradeoff?
[18:03] <icarus_narcissus> Cargo for exploration is already too small, it's a direct hindrance to perform the PvE role.
[18:03] <eustise> @titus.tallang not really
[18:03] <eustise> you will already be 'full' with two small containers
[18:03] <eustise> and a depo
[18:03] <eustise> and putting bulkheads will toss you into 'illegal' zone :stuck_out_tongue:
[18:04] <icarus_narcissus> like... requiring an alt to follow you around in a blockade runner style hinderance, which is why I brought up a cargo bonus on the Cloak/Probe sub yesterday
[18:04] <eustise> that kind of defeats the whole concept of solo explo
[18:04] <eustise> at that point you just have a separate dedicated ship for running dangerous sites
[18:05] <eustise> another issue, even if we were to switch cloak for a proper defensive
[18:05] <eustise> is the covops cloak size
[18:05] <eustise> if we need to remove it from the fit, boom, 100m3
[18:05] <eustise> which we really can't fit anyhwere
[18:05] <titus.tallang> can't keep it offline? :thinking_face:
[18:05] <titus.tallang> (idk if that works)
[18:05] <eustise> given you'll switch subs, i don't know how we'll handle illegal configurations
[18:06] <titus.tallang> also, drop depot, refit to structure, leave cargo stuff in depot, run site, back to depot, refit again?
[18:06] <titus.tallang> sounds annoying i guess
[18:06] <icarus_narcissus> Maybe a relic/data hold for exploration ships if you don't want to turn them into insane nullified blockade runners?
[18:07] <eustise> we can fit extra gear and a sub or two, depending on their sizes
[18:07] <eustise> but a whole cloak? no way
[18:07] <eustise> i mean, i'm not sure how hard the cargohold can be militarized with XLASBs
[18:08] <eustise> but outright increasing it would solve some matters
[18:08] <eustise> or just increasing the cloak module cargo hold size
[18:08] <icarus_narcissus> Increasing it outright with the number of low slots they have though, also strongly encroaches on the blockade runner
[18:08] <eustise> if memory is right, i have 280m3 on my prot
[18:09] <icarus_narcissus> Which holds, at most 2 hull sections
[18:09] <eustise> we're not even talking hull sections here
[18:09] <eustise> you have one 100m3 small container which is brimming with 120m3 of extra gear you need
[18:09] <eustise> another 100m3 which is the 'loot' container'
[18:09] <eustise> and a 50m3 depo
[18:10] <eustise> and whatever tiny bits of combat probes or extra ammo you want to fit in the remainign 30m3
[18:10] <titus.tallang> random idea
[18:10] <titus.tallang> t3cs are supposed to be these super adaptable ships
[18:11] <titus.tallang> so why not give them a 200m³ or whatever "utility hold" that can only hold
[18:11] <titus.tallang> idk
[18:11] <titus.tallang> modules and deployables
[18:11] <titus.tallang> or something like that
[18:11] <eustise> seems like a petty thing when you can just choose to give covops sub that extra 200m3
[18:12] <icarus_narcissus> @eustise where do you do your exploration? J or K space?
[18:13] <eustise> we can consider explo to be pirate sites, sleeper caches, drone datas, but not sleeper relics/dats
[18:13] <titus.tallang> it'd be another point of thematic distinction without running into potential issues with them becoming super strong cargo haulers
[18:14] <eustise> given how big hulls and sleeper explo loot can get, it's often not worth carrying them if you're nomading around
[18:14] <eustise> when you can just get a lot more ramtech/cores/plates
[18:18] <sturm_gewehr> I like considering a special cargo bay for things like rigs or a mobile depot, or a new mechanic where t3s can deploy to refit in space (add sufficient cooldowns and restrictions as needed).
[18:18] <sturm_gewehr> Would really help make the adaptable gameplay thing more of a reality.
[18:18] <eustise> i'll still carry a depo, even with the mechanic
[18:18] <eustise> i mean, i can drop a depo, gtfo for a minute, then switch
[18:19] <lanyaie> Sturm, what do you mean with that last part?
[18:20] <icarus_narcissus> I think, really, an exploration hold makes a lot sense and prevents stepping on Blockade Runner toes or getting into weaponized cargo. An interdiction nullified cloaky ship with either a large cargohold or one that can carry modules and deployables has a lot of potential to get exploited.
[18:21] <icarus_narcissus> Think about what else qualifies as deployables -- Warp Bubbles, Cyno Inhibitors, etc
[18:21] <lanyaie> As is, you can already get a fairly large cargohold. Exploited in what way?
[18:22] <eustise> an exploration hold won't do much if it'll just hold explo loot... it'd be /nice/ but hardly solving the issue we're working off
[18:22] <eustise> and saving me the 50m3 for the depo? that, again, won't do much when two-three bulkheads cut a fair bit out of it
[18:23] <icarus_narcissus> I was under the impression the issue we're working off of was cargo space restrictions for Exploration ships
[18:23] <eustise> we're rambling a bit, but the core issue is giving explo t3c's some for of ehp which is not PvP militarizable to be able to do the higher tier exploration sites
[18:23] <caprisunkraftfoods> I think a cargohold increase in general would be pretty useful even just for fleet stuff. You're already limited on what subsystems and refits you can bring. I know in HK we literally fill our cargohold completely with HAM missiles and come back from a big fight more than half empty and completely depleted of at least 1 or 2 ammo types
[18:24] <icarus_narcissus> If the cargo hold isn't dedicated to bringing your loot home, that cargo could be used to store additional modules for the tech 3 which is now capable of large-scale refitting in space
[18:24] <eustise> on that i agree, whatever we're talking they could use a bump of cargo space, i was running out of HAMS decently often both for pve and pvp in legion/tengu
[18:25] <icarus_narcissus> You could, at the depot switch between two nearly completely different site running and scanning/hacking fits if you saw fit
[18:25] <eustise> a full fit is... a lot of m3
[18:26] <titus.tallang> if the bay is limited to modules, we could easily give it 1k m³ or something without it being a large issue
[18:26] <titus.tallang> since it's a specialty bay it wouldn't scale with expanders either
[18:26] <eustise> i would /love/ to safely haul 1k m3 of modules
[18:26] <eustise> but that's not a t3c, that's a transport ship
[18:27] <eustise> a sub, right now, is 40m3
[18:27] <eustise> you need five
[18:27] <eustise> that's 200 m3
[18:27] <eustise> for a whole fit
[18:27] <icarus_narcissus> 4*
[18:27] <eustise> out of 280 cargo
[18:27] <eustise> mentioned right now
[18:27] <icarus_narcissus> What I'm suggesting is increase base cargo by 50% then add an exploration hold
[18:28] <eustise> sure, 160 m3
[18:28] <icarus_narcissus> not just adding an exploration hold
[18:28] <eustise> on top of that, you need to add a few sets of reists, that's 40m3, then some eanms, dc2, and two 20m3 plates, totalling 40 m3
[18:29] <icarus_narcissus> Like... most cruisers have 400 m3+
[18:29] <eustise> and we haven't even gotten to the point of 'where do i fit my loot'
[18:29] <icarus_narcissus> bring T3s in line with that
[18:29] <icarus_narcissus> You fit your loot in the exploration hold
[18:30] <eustise> explo loot is tiny if you're discounting hulls, the point was that while exploing
[18:30] <eustise> you can't /afford/ to really carry a whole heaping extra fit
[18:30] <eustise> sure, a sub or two, maybe three
[18:30] <eustise> but even so, it's decently difficult to slap it all in
[18:31] <eustise> while extra cargo would help, base issue that we started off of was based on ehp, and the proposition to use structure tanking to fill that gap
[18:32] <sturm_gewehr> @sturm_gewehr pinned a message to this channel.
[18:32] <sturm_gewehr> [May 31st, 2017 11:18 AM] sturm_gewehr: I like considering a special cargo bay for things like rigs or a mobile depot, or a new mechanic where t3s can deploy to refit in space (add sufficient cooldowns and restrictions as needed).
[18:35] <sturm_gewehr> This would unlock the m3 from a depot and allow fleets/players to use a travel fit until they get close to a fight and then swap to combat fits right before.
[18:36] <icarus_narcissus> Okay, so a stabber has 420 base cargo, the "average" cruiser cargo right now in the game is about 425
[18:36] <icarus_narcissus> If you fit 3 transverse bulkheads and 3 reinforced bulkheads on a stabber you end up with 253.86m3
[18:36] <caprisunkraftfoods> @icarus_narcissus what problem would an exploration loot hold solve that we would currently have by just increasing the m3 of the regular cargo hold
[18:37] <icarus_narcissus> @caprisunkraftfoods
[18:37] <icarus_narcissus> 1) It would solve the current problem with J-Space Exploration by allowing more m3 of loot to be hauled at once.
[18:37] <icarus_narcissus> 2) It would prevent causing a problem with T3Cs overreaching into the realm of a cloaky-nully hauler for lower volume goods
[18:38] <icarus_narcissus> they already do a bit of #2, but it would prevent further encroachment into the blockade runner'
[18:38] <eustise> j-space explo, if we're talking hulls, is its own thing given the size of them
[18:39] <eustise> also the fact that you need to switch to a sleeper-killing-capable fit
[18:40] <exooki> is the only m3 concern the relics?
[18:40] <exooki> what if we just shrink those?
[18:40] <icarus_narcissus> @exooki That is a definitely valid option as well
[18:40] <icarus_narcissus> :slightly_smiling_face:
[18:41] <exooki> for the people that actually run the relics, i think they usually toss them becuase theyre so big
[18:41] <exooki> you need a indy practically for 1 full relic site
[18:41] <icarus_narcissus> A single lucky relic site can, currently fill a blockade runner
[18:41] <exooki> atm, of course, the relic loot from WH ones is worthless anyways
[18:41] <icarus_narcissus> which is insane
[18:41] <exooki> which I HOPE we are able to make progress on with this balance pass
[18:42] <icarus_narcissus> Me as well
[18:42] <noxisia> haha, I doubt they're going to let us touch explo and t3
[18:42] <icarus_narcissus> T3 production is part of the reason a few of us are in this channel
[18:44] <exooki> the production and industry part of t3s was included in this focus group's focus
[18:47] <caprisunkraftfoods> http://img.skyride.org/plS3o6.png thats the actual averages for cargo capacity btw
[18:47] <icarus_narcissus> Woo! I was 0.33 off :slightly_smiling_face:
[18:48] <caprisunkraftfoods> funny how T3Ds are higher than cruisers :thinking_face:
[18:49] <icarus_narcissus> mmhmm
[18:49] <icarus_narcissus> Definitely think a cargo increase is in order
[18:49] <icarus_narcissus> Especially considering the goal is for the ships to be able to refit and be flexible
[18:55] <eustise> i'll be getting some more breakdown of dps in explo sites tomorrow from Signal Cartel, and i'll make some math regarding what's needed
[20:51] <asher_elias> have we got any base numbers yet?
[20:51] <asher_elias> I've been looking at the loki and it looks like it may tank A LOT
[21:02] <eustise> we don't, but i'm expecting the loki to have 'mediocre' base stats
[21:10] <white0rchid> It looks like the shield loki will yes
[21:10] <white0rchid> Armor will be about on par with where it is now I think
[21:21] <rowells> Mostly depends if you want webs or not. Difference between a 7 and 5 slot layout
[21:21] <rowells> Don't know exactly how the lower resists and hp bonus will work out together though
[21:23] <rowells> It'll be interesting if the weapon strengths are worth it in which cases after that
[21:24] <white0rchid> Currently it's kinda hard to get any meaningful damage from an arty loki in an AHAC fleet without sacrificing slot layout at which point why not just go prot/legion
[21:24] <white0rchid> They're pretty much used solely for webs atm
[21:25] <white0rchid> I mean I won't lie it would be *nice* to have them be viable as both a webber and have non-anaemic dps at the same time
[21:26] <rowells> If my math is right, missile system is looking to have about ~500dps depending on stuff
[21:28] <rowells> Optimal and falloff in the same sub should be decent addition
[21:29] <white0rchid> Also seems loki missiles will apply better too?
[21:29] <white0rchid> Than both legion and tengu
[21:35] <white0rchid> It would be nice to see that probe launcher CPU reduction moved as a hull role bonus though
[21:35] <white0rchid> Not the strenght
[21:35] <white0rchid> Just the fitting
[21:35] <eustise> it was mentioned and fozzie said he liked the idea so there's that
[21:38] <sullen> looking forward to dusting off my loki
[21:40] <exooki> would people use probes on a non cloaky t3 tho?
[21:40] <icarus_narcissus> @exooki Apparently K-Space people do weird stuff
[21:40] <icarus_narcissus> :stuck_out_tongue:
[21:41] <white0rchid> Yes
[21:41] <white0rchid> we do
[21:41] <white0rchid> :stuck_out_tongue:
[21:43] <eustise> for one thing, with the extra free high, we'd not be forced to carry around an emergency roll-out kit
[21:43] <eustise> which is bloody nice
[21:43] <eustise> and frees up 50m3 for more ammo
[21:46] <lanyaie> ```Exploration PvE Role
[21:46] <lanyaie> Issues with EHP needed to successfully engage in high-tier exploration sites Sleeper Caches/Ghost Sites while in Covops mode.
[21:46] <lanyaie> ```
[21:46] <lanyaie> I read that from the doc, why is that an issue?
[21:46] <lanyaie> I consider that a tradeoff
[21:46] <lanyaie> you choose to pick the cov ops subsystem and as such, you do not get the EHP.
[21:49] <sullen> has fozzie updated anything from the previously released excel?
[21:50] <sullen> also one thing i noticed. not sure if i agree with the tengu getting +3 mid slots off the cloaky setup
[21:50] <sullen> especially considering all other ships basically are losing 1 slot from their primary tank slot for the cloaky setup
[21:52] <exooki> thoughts on the tengu's 2nd weapon system? i think 20% may be a bit too high
[21:52] <exooki> i believe we want to avoid eltting petes be a thing, which is why the nullification penalizes lock range
[21:52] <lanyaie> The disclaimer does say "Offensive subsystem bonuses are very likely too good in this draft"
[21:53] <exooki> i know, but i havent seen this one brought up
[21:53] <exooki> at 20%, you wont need TCs to get sniper range, and can use its fit to counter the lock range penalty
[21:54] <exooki> if were attempting to make cloaky, nullified, snipers impossible ( or severely weakened) than i think we may wanna look at 10%, between the tracking range theyd need, and sebos shouldnt be able to get the range
[21:54] <white0rchid> petes are as common as they once were
[21:54] <white0rchid> nullified already gets lock range nerf
[21:54] <white0rchid> if it's enough, then you won't be able to counter, even with sebos
[21:54] <exooki> it does, but currently you need to devote some of its slots to opt range
[21:55] <exooki> too steep a penalty might make it a bit painfult o use for anything though
[21:55] <white0rchid> I think with rail tengus being even less used than legion/prots atm, I don't see that as being too strong
[21:55] <eustise> @sullen nope, he didn't but i'm not expecting another pass until either this friday or next week when numbers get crunched
[22:04] <caprisunkraftfoods> just some mistakes, like the 1300% rep fall off bonus being marked as per level :stuck_out_tongue:
[22:05] <starfleetcommander> it says role bonus
[22:05] <starfleetcommander> so its not per lvl
[22:05] <eustise> yeah, that got changed specifically :stuck_out_tongue:
[22:05] <starfleetcommander> oh did i miss somthing?
[22:06] <eustise> just a sentence issue
[22:06] <starfleetcommander> oh okay :slightly_smiling_face:
[22:08] <exooki> 1.0 had it just listed
[22:28] <sullen> @eustise thanks i just wanted to make sure
[22:29] <sullen> also unless i'm reading incorrectly is there no bonuses to the command bursts?
[22:30] <sullen> wait it just says current burst bonuses
[22:30] <sullen> so same as current t3c's
[22:30] <eustise> yep
[22:31] <sullen> it will be interesting seeing combined prot/legion rep/boosts
[22:31] <sullen> will make very obvious/tanky "shoot that shit" situations in pvp
[22:31] <sullen> curious how it will change small gang combat
[22:32] <sullen> specifically how much people will fly with the "eggbasket" situation of having everything in those few ships