Morning fellows

Vigilant powergrid seems to be at least a mild concern so I'll look at that again. I'm not sure there will be changes here because if I remember correctly it was trivial to do 1600 + mwd + at least Ions which is probably a bit generous. Will check it out though.

Hopefully back with more in a few hours. Thanks for the response (except you Capqu)

No update on changes yet, but I wanted to respond to a few more things.

On the Vigilant fitting (and similar fitting related comments) - as someone mentioned above, fitting a ship is not meant to be a matter of fitting all the biggest things. There are certainly times when the fitting allocation is too restrictive and we don't want that either, but for ship-fitting gameplay to be good it must include personalization/strategy/tradeoffs. That's what we're trying to accomplish.

There's some sentiment (as there often seems to be) that these changes somehow pigeonhole ships into roles that we have explicitly defined rather than allowing for more open or generalized ships. I would say that while some roles have shifted (no more Sentry Drones for the Gila being the best example), Pirate Faction ships remain a set of very good generalists. We have an opportunity, because of their flavor and cost, to give them some very interesting capabilities that go a bit outside the box, which is great, but we haven't tried to restrict them to a specific environment at all. The Gila will still have plenty of PVE application and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find examples of lost capability for the rest of these ships resulting from the proposed changes.

Sorry for the typos that were in the OP, hopefully I've removed the last of them now but if you see more let me know.

The deimos doesnt have the broken as hell 90% web. A single vigilant can web a target down to a small fraction of what every deimos in the game combined could web a target to.

Probably just a single trimark

The Serpentis web bonus is extremely strong. We went into this balance pass thinking it was probably too strong and that we may need to tune it down. In the first Pirate Faction thread (the Frigates) I asked specifically for feedback on this bonus and how players felt about it. We also brought it up with the CSM during the summit.

The vast majority of feedback from all angles pointed towards an agreement that in certain environments this bonus was extremely powerful but that it wasn't having a negative effect on the game overall and we should leave it alone. I'm not sure if anyone remembers by now but when I casually mentioned changing this bonus during a Reddit AMA there was an outcry to prevent us from doing that at all costs.

Internally we are a bit divided even though we all agree it's one of the game's most powerful bonuses. I want to try and leave it because unique points of power like this one, as long as they aren't oppressive, are more interesting than moving everything towards a middle ground.

i'd like that, but it can already here the guys at ccp groaning at buffing the mach that much without taking something away. I'd imagine that something being the drone bay and ability to use sentries.

Hey RISE, pretend it's the end of the week already and post the battleship thread !

Judging how the last rebalance threads have gone, I'm thinking the reason why Rise doesn't consider implementing valid player ideas that get brought up is because the credit or subsequent blame would go to the player in question, causing unintentional collateral damage to a customer.

This is the main issue with having an open forum, as the responsibility for fixing an issue lies soley with the devs, so having someone come up with a legitimately good idea to implement a change doesn't happen because the dev in charge of rebalancing a mechanic can't appear to be picking sides.

A possible solution to this to help alleviate concerns on both ends would be to have the dev in charge periodically link a poll listing concerns with the subject of the thread, ideas posted by players from the thread to vote on, and a extremely displeased to extremely pleased scale options for players to choose from.

Would you consider this an acceptable method for helping these Feature posts, both from a player and Dev perspective? The only reason why I see him boxed into odd ideas is so they don't appear to exhibit favoritism, or have one idiot posting around everywhere, "Hey, that was MY idea! (link post) everyone should be paying attention to ME!"

I think this would help solve a lot of the major communication problems we are having from the player base to the developers, and cut down on a lot of the hate and angst in these threads.

Can't say I am happy with the Vigilant changes.

- I cant remember ever thinking that i wished for more lock range or every having a problem in that department.
- I have no issues with speed, especially with the Webbing bonus.
- The only thing that removing 150pg does, is remove the ability to fit a 1600mm plate onto it which gives it much less tank than the others, or you could down grade to Ions and lose half your dps.

Seems like a kick in the goolies to me...
To be fair, I have not had a chance to plug it into EFT as of yet.

There's a reason the cargo holds don't usually make it into the OP but it isn't a good one. I'll try to work on that in the future. I'm going to change the cargo for the cruisers to the following numbers:

Ashimmu: 430
Cynabal: 400
Gila: 440
Phantasm: 410
Vigilant: 450

Look for the battleship post at the start of next week.

and here is me thinking the only battleship you fly is 18bil pimped CNR's..

8-6-6 should be mach layout 7 turrets is fine allows a neut

on the whole, I rate all changes as comprehensible except the vigilant nerf.

it is now the first ship with too little powergrid in order to fit the other version of the appropriate weaponsystem.

let-¦s do some math:

ashimmu and vigilant both have 5H,4M,6L
ashimmu have 16,2% more PG than the vigilant

max. fittable PG for the H-slots:
Ashimmu: 3x heavy beam laser II + 2x medium nos/neut 3x 248 + 2x 200 = 1144
Vigiant: 5x 250mm railgun II 5x 208 = 1040

ashimmu only needs 10% more PG than Vigilant
if you take Meta 4 nos/neut with no negativ effect the ashimmu needs only 4% more PG

in other words ... the ashimmu have min.12,2% more PG to fit for tank
but already have 18% more base armor HP than the vigilant

CCP Rise please explain that to me !!!

i dont no what RRT means but
currently on TQ.

and obviously it needs a nerf because you have to choose between tank and dps. and here the vigilant clearly gets both.

[Vigilant, 56]
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Damage Control II

Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Federation Navy Stasis Webifier
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Void M

Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Medium Ancillary Current Router II

Valkyrie II x5