EVE Search - Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Sticky:Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14907	Posted - 2017.05.30 15:40:39 - [1] - Quote Hey everyone! If you've read the previous thread asking for applications or our recent dev blog you'll know that we have spun up another community focus group to help refine plans for a Strategic Cruiser rebalance this summer. We almost have the whole group in the channel now and we're starting in earnest. The basic outline of our goals and early plans can be found in the balance presentation from Fanfest as well as the dev blog. We'll be using this thread as a location for general community discussion and Q&A as we go through this process. Anyone can observe the logs of the discussion in the focus group slack through https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/ We'll also link other working documents in this thread as we go forward so the whole community can take a look. Thanks! Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie


CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14907	Posted - 2017.05.30 15:40:48 - [2] - Quote Reserved Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie


CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14907	Posted - 2017.05.30 15:40:53 - [3] - Quote Reserved Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Cypherous Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty 232	Posted - 2017.05.30 16:02:07 - [4] - Quote The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14907	Posted - 2017.05.30 16:07:44 - [5] - Quote Cypherous wrote: The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration Yup preserving exploration gameplay is definitely a priority for CCP as well. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Cypherous Liberty Rogues Aprilon Dynasty 232	Posted - 2017.05.30 16:10:36 - [6] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Cypherous wrote: The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration Yup preserving exploration gameplay is definitely a priority for CCP as well. Oh and just a clarification, the probe bonus on the cloak sub is per level for scan probe strength i'm assuming, the same as the current bonus, its hard to tell whats per level on that line compared to static bonuses, more of a formatting issue really :P
Alyla By 7	Posted - 2017.05.30 16:20:49 - [7] - Quote Great discussions and points well made from the focus group so far. I got extremely interested by the Heat bonus mention few days ago. It comes down to a simple fact : a visible bonus is better than a invisible/passive bonus. Give a ship to someone telling him that overheat damage is reduced by 20% when using armor hardeners, he will be like "cool !" without thinking anything else. You don't have any mention telling you how much time you can overheat until you are at 100% damage, and except doing the math yourself or launching pyfa / eft, it's not something apparent. Give a ship to someone telling him there is a bonus to overheat bonus, and he will see his scram going from 24km to 36km (assumng the OH is 50% instead of 20%, random number). The pilot will immediately see the difference, and in this case the use of this bonus will feel more rewarding. This is something which is already listed in your proposal changes and I like it. I am perplex about the overheat damage reduction bonus, such as now, because it feels less rewarding Regarding the slot layout, I would make a difference between the Legion and Proteus subsystems so that the legion tends to have more low slots than the proteus. For the legion, +2 Mid / +2 Low would then be +1 Mid / 3 Low. Regarding the Active tank subsystem on the Tengu, I believe "+10% Shield Boost, +10% Shield Boost Benefits" should be read as "+10% Shield Boost, +10% Shield Boost Overheat Benefits" ?
Phaezen Orti WiNGSPAN Delivery Services WiNGSPAN Delivery Network 3	Posted - 2017.05.30 16:48:49 - [8] - Quote Is there any compelling reason to keep the kinetic lock on the Tengu missile subsystem? rough calculations, missile tengu will have 10 launchers Kin locked where the legion 6.5 but with added 7.5 medium drones and the loki 7.5 with4 medium drones and damage application bonus
naed21 The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 46	Posted - 2017.05.30 16:54:35 - [9] - Quote "Increase cost slightly" Is this form the new item being added to the hull manf requirements? I was hoping the invension side could be looked at as well. If I'm understanding this correctly, this item is being used to put some cost difference into the hulls like how the racial Hybrid Tech Decryptors used to. Except it's being done on building side instead of invension. Which imo is where the changes need to be made. Back when hybrid tech decryptors were a thing, the caldari racial variant was so expensive it proped up the intact and malf relic prices because of how inefficient using wrecked relics were. With the rest of the races bouncing between malf and wrecked. Removing the decryptors made all four T3s cost the same to invent. Then later (or was it at the same time?) we got to choose the outcome of our invension and that basically buffed invension chance by 200% (1/4 chance of what you wanted to 1/1). This is also ignoring the success boosting decryptors we get to use now as well. So what I'd like to see is Hybrid Tech Decryptors added back into sleeper data sites (Giving them back the only drop that was worth anything) and then reducing the invension chance by 50% (or 75% if you want to go back to how relics used to be priced). Then maybe I won't have to tell people that run relic/data sleeper sites that the hackable cans are a waste of time.
Tiwaz Inkura Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 0	Posted - 2017.05.30 16:54:43 - [10] - Quote Quote: Reduce T3C base resists to T3D level Does that mean T3D base or T3d's in defensive mode?

Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate 1856	Posted - 2017.05.30 17:23:34 - [11] - Quote I would like to see the skillpoint loss die in a fire... Much as I appreciate CCPs "financial benefits" to skillpoint loss, it's a godawful mechanic that dissuades a lot of players from using an entire class of ships that has no place in today's game. Remove the SP loss and you have more flexibility to play about with defensive options.
Uriam Khanid New Machinarium Corporation 85	Posted - 2017.05.30 17:37:55 - [12] - Quote Like: missile Loki and Legion subs Dislike: +1 high slot and only ROF all missile subs Can you add a secondary (?!) e-war bonuses/sub like TP, TD and sensor damp?
Sterling Blades Windstalker Security Corp United Neopian Federation 33	Posted - 2017.05.30 17:49:05 - [13] - Quote Currently liking how things are going with the wip subsystem sheet. Do have to nitpick about the base resist changes down into t3d territory, and truthfully a bit miffed with certain combinations, but overall its actually a fairly solid work and progress set. The gods are out there. They watch us. They guide, they manipulate. We rally behind the ones we adore, and rain fire against those who rally behind the ones we hate. The question now is, to whom does your allegiance fall behind, dear Empyreans?
Eileen Black Decompression Theory Digital Vendetta 10	Posted - 2017.05.30 17:49:20 - [14] - Quote Although I'd hate to see my superoptimized 10/10 solo runner T3cs go, those changes look great. I am thinking that maybe the probe should not be part of the cloak and instead tied to electronics like it is right now; Combat probing T3Cs in normal, day to day ops in Null are very useful thanks to that particular bonus, since You sacrifice ewar/ sensor strength for probing. But it seems like there's no better place to put that so let it be. Overall: +++ cloaky sub. Loving it. +++ Loki optinal and falloff bonus ++ Drones on secondary legion sub :) + Overall more droney cruisers ~ Don't know if the Tengu AB speed AND Heat benefits don't make it too strong, especially for 100MN fits. - Proteus: Current drone sub gives 100mb, 5% hybrid and 10% drone damage and is very mediocre. I'd like for a hybrid damage or that final 25mb drone
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2017.05.30 18:12:35 - [15] - Quote legion offense seems weak compared to the others i guess thats just its thing
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1290	Posted - 2017.05.30 18:13:30 - [16] - Quote 50% ehp nerf pls, and make the cap regen thing into cap amount or something so cap batteries don't go nuts like on hacs
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues Hookers N' Blow 34	Posted - 2017.05.30 18:22:47 - [17] - Quote naed21 wrote: "Increase cost slightly" Is this form the new item being added to the hull manf requirements? I was hoping the invension side could be looked at as well. If I'm understanding this correctly, this item is being used to put some cost difference into the hulls like how the racial Hybrid Tech Decryptors used to. Except it's being done on building side instead of invension. Which imo is where the changes need to be made. Back when hybrid tech decryptors were a thing, the caldari racial variant was so expensive it proped up the intact and malf relic prices because of how inefficient using wrecked relics were. With the rest of the races bouncing between malf and wrecked. Removing the decryptors made all four T3s cost the same to invent. Then later (or was it at the same time?) we got to choose the outcome of our invension and that basically buffed invension chance by 200% (1/4 chance of what you wanted to 1/1). This is also ignoring the success boosting decryptors we get to use now as well. So what I'd like to see is Hybrid Tech Decryptors added back into sleeper data sites (Giving them back the only drop that was worth anything) and then reducing the invension chance by 50% (or 75% if you want to go back to how relics used to be priced). Then maybe I won't have to tell people that run relic/data sleeper sites that the hackable cans are a waste of time. The same thing would be accomplished if they increase the value of the subsystems datacores(increased usage/decreased drops), from currently 5k isk (essentially zero)
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services WiNGSPAN Delivery Network 757	Posted - 2017.05.30 18:25:15 - [18] - Quote Gonna need more time to look this over, but at initial glance I am VERY excited about the covert ops possibilities with these options. My greatest reserve has been that the changes would present no compelling reason to ever fly a T3C over a Stratios for cloaky hunting (not HK-ing), and my fears are allayed. There are going to be some REALLY COOL fits here. Have to take this to the lab for a bit but I am hugely optimistic about at least this angle of the changes. Thank you for sharing, Fozzie! You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Eustise Mass Collapse It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake 6	Posted - 2017.05.30 18:47:59 - [19] - Quote Cypherous wrote: The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, Jump bumping in to say that all exploration seems to be in a fantastic place with these changes so far. I'll still hold my breath until i see the final numbers for armor/shield to check out how it works against Ghost Sites and Superior Sleeper Caches, since that's where EHP actually matters for us, but the big issues have passed and we'll take the EHP hits as everyone else, as well as the agility hits. Taking a Proteus as an example, we'll have the option of a new fully bonused offensive system if we give up a current lowslot, which will allow us to properly molest Asteros and maybe, just maybe, even Strats. With the RR/burst bonus sub we get the current slot layout, however, we will get a new targetting range lock penalty with the Nullification sub. Depending on how many stabs you run, that may affect you. Coming back to EHP, it's worth mentioning that we'll get a new 37.5% local rep bonus, compared to the +hp bonus we used to get. With the other nerfs, it'll round to about 10-15% more local rep bonus, but that's more than face-tanking Superior Archives. I'm not sure how the tradeoff will work. However, given T3D resists, a Prot will have the same 50% explosion resistence as it always had, which means Ghost Sites will do the same amount of damage to you.
Urlos Rinah A.S.K Hiigaran Protectorate 3	Posted - 2017.05.30 18:49:29 - [20] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Cypherous wrote: The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration Yup preserving exploration gameplay is definitely a priority for CCP as well. Why did you transfered scaning bonuses to deffence slot? some exploration sites do a lot of damage, with this i can say "Farewel forever" to a sleeper sites, i do not care about offence at all at that, please move exploration bonuses to other slot, offence with cloak as it was for all i care. EXPLORERS NEED DEFENCE!!!

JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2017.05.30 18:56:42 - [21] - Quote Urlos Rinah wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Cypherous wrote: The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration Yup preserving exploration gameplay is definitely a priority for CCP as well. Why did you transfered scaning bonuses to deffence slot? some exploration sites do a lot of damage, with this i can say "Farewel forever" to a sleeper sites, i do not care about offence at all at that, please move exploration bonuses to other slot, offence with cloak as it was for all i care. EXPLORERS NEED DEFENCE!!! cloak sub gets 7.5% rep/level bonus
Eustise Mass Collapse It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake 6	Posted - 2017.05.30 19:01:49 - [22] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: [quote=Urlos Rinah] cloak sub gets 7.5% rep/level bonus While i'm mostly happy, the last remaining core issue with explo T3Cs in the current iteration, is the buffer, not necessarily the rep. Most things in explo sites, explosion/NPCs in Ghosts and the Superior Archive as well as a mishap in the Turret room, all deal huge amounts of damage in a very quick timeframe (5 seconds in the Turret, ~45s in the Ghost, scrammed by NPCs and how long you can last in the superior archives), and you don't really have time to rep through it.
Urlos Rinah A.S.K Hiigaran Protectorate 3	Posted - 2017.05.30 19:09:28 - [23] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: Urlos Rinah wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Cypherous wrote: The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration Yup preserving exploration gameplay is definitely a priority for CCP as well. Why did you transfered scaning bonuses to deffence slot? some exploration sites do a lot of damage, with this i can say "Farewel forever" to a sleeper sites, i do not care about offence at all at that, please move exploration bonuses to other slot, offence with cloak as it was for all i care. EXPLORERS NEED DEFENCE!!! cloak sub gets 7.5% rep/level bonus with lowering def stats it is more than 15% defence penalty compared to situation at a moment, and at a moment i use drugs to resist all damage sleeper sites deliver. Can it keep 500 dps omnitank? think not.
Nikola Starwhisper Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2017.05.30 19:14:37 - [24] - Quote What current idea for % of debuffing? I`m about increasing sig, mass, and reducing speed/agility. Difference may NOT be larger then 10%. T3 is dynamical ship, if you make this parameters like a BSH - people change t3 for pirate/t2 BSH
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 805	Posted - 2017.05.30 19:41:43 - [25] - Quote Those are subsystems bonuses. What are the base hull stats? We need to know what values we are adding by subs. Local rep strenght on covert subsystem is per level? Make covert subsytem split bonuses between active/passive tank subsystem - both but half the value for example: 5% rep and 2,5% raw HP. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Urlos Rinah A.S.K Hiigaran Protectorate 3	Posted - 2017.05.30 19:51:18 - [26] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Those are subsystems bonuses. What are the base hull stats? We need to know what values we are adding by subs. Local rep strenght on covert subsystem is per level? Make covert subsytem split bonuses between active/passive tank subsystem - both but half the value for example: 5% rep and 2,5% raw HP. Edit: I would rather see jackdaw missile bonuses rather than kinetic lock on Tengu. I absolutely object splitting bonuses, make those for covert pvp pilots in other sub!
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services WiNGSPAN Delivery Network 757	Posted - 2017.05.30 19:51:28 - [27] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Those are subsystems bonuses. What are the base hull stats? We need to know what values we are adding by subs. Local rep strenght on covert subsystem is per level? Make covert subsytem split bonuses between active/passive tank subsystem - both but half the value for example: 5% rep and 2,5% raw HP. Edit: I would rather see jackdaw missile bonuses rather than kinetic lock on Tengu. I'd rather see the covops defensive bonuses split by ship than have it be split 50/50 for every ship. It's a guaranteed way to end up with a terrible final tank. If you have to change it, make 2 active and 2 passive instead. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Alyla By 7	Posted - 2017.05.30 20:12:49 - [28] - Quote Also, on this CPU / PG topic, while keeping it on the subsystem as a role bonus, it may also be possible to put it on the Hull skill (Caldar Strategic Cruiser & cie) Just adding ideas to the mix
Aly Ankn Check Your Sig 1	Posted - 2017.05.30 20:28:32 - [29] - Quote Don't see y base speed needs a Nerf. If 100MN speed is a concern then drop the ab bonus some to compensate. T3c go about as fast as a bc without implants.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2017.05.30 20:29:45 - [30] - Quote hm on closer inspection this is my tc3 summary legion 5lows/3mids crap damage options crap damage mods proteus 4lows/4mids (3 lows/5 mids for ewar...) real nice damage options crap tank options crap damage mods tengu 6 mids/2 lows crap damage options crap damage mods loki 5 lows/3mids (5mids/3 lows for ewar) great damage options with drones on all subs for some reason selectable tank well loki is looking way above the rest of the crowd due to dual tank options therefore having better slot options and also having great damage subs the others all suck slot layouts too restrictive no real choice of subs due to slot restrictions crap damage subs for legion and tengu crap tank for proteus just my 2 cents on current stage of development feel free to correct me if im wrong

Eustise Mass Collapse It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake 6	Posted - 2017.05.30 20:35:17 - [31] - Quote The Loki may just end up with mediocre base stats in both shields and armor, so people may just choose one of the specialized shield/armor versions anyway.
Aernir Ridley Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 13	Posted - 2017.05.30 21:24:14 - [32] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: hm on closer inspection this is my tc3 summary well loki is looking way above the rest of the crowd due to dual tank options therefore having better slot options and also having great damage subs the others all suck slot layouts too restrictive no real choice of subs due to slot restrictions crap damage subs for legion and tengu crap tank for proteus just my 2 cents on current stage of development feel free to correct me if im wrong I don't see any combination that shows the slot layouts you've listed there except on the Proteus (unless you're using cloaky nullified but you should never use that for combat). The Tengu for example in a standard config is 6 mid/3 low for solo (although without the cap regen bonus it will be difficult to use), and 6 mid/4 low for fleet. The damage bonuses are also all the same that they are now, minus Rapid Lights. The only issue I'm seeing is the non-tank slot numbers (ie. Medium for Armor and Low for Shield). With the loss of one of the subsystems, the number of these slots has dropped for all ships to a point where they're no longer effectively usable. Adding them back in the new Core subsystem or another could help though. Also although the numbers aren't released yet, the Loki should probably have nerfed armor and shield compared to the rest of the T3Cs to make up for choice of tank; Or just give it **** all capacitor like all other Minmatar ships XD "For most people, the sky's the limit... For those who love aviation, the sky, is home." -Cheers! :D
Mr Floydy Footloose Phoebe Freeport Republic 360	Posted - 2017.05.30 21:26:35 - [33] - Quote A question triggered by this: From the Focus Group chat logs... wrote: [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 [21:13] ccp_fozzie: an art guy would come over to my desk and knock me out with one of those expensive digital drawing tablets Currently we've got 4 subsystem choices for each type, can you expand on why there's a limitation for only 3 now? Are the ships getting a complete remodel from scratch, or are you just binning off certain subsystems and now only have the art budget to maintain 3 of each of the 4 subsystems? I'm really hoping we're not going to lose out on some of the more distinct and pretty subsystem combos! I'd love to comment more on the balance side of things, but don't think there is enough of a full picture for it right now. Some of the ideas and changes to the subsystems sound promising though.
Capqu Half Empty skill urself 1316	Posted - 2017.05.30 21:42:56 - [34] - Quote damage seems a bit high in all covops configurations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2017.05.30 21:44:01 - [35] - Quote Aernir Ridley wrote: I don't see any combination that shows the slot layouts you've listed there except on the Proteus (unless you're using cloaky nullified but you should never use that for combat). The Tengu for example in a standard config is 6 mid/3 low for solo (although without the cap regen bonus it will be difficult to use), and 6 mid/4 low for fleet. The damage bonuses are also all the same that they are now, minus Rapid Lights. yeah youre right i forgot the slots from the prop subs panic over for now i'll take another look tomorrow its getting late
Alderson Point Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 103	Posted - 2017.05.30 21:52:34 - [36] - Quote I am following the focus group with some interest. It seems to be going well, a good discussion. @Fozzie Being as we aren't able to post there, On the issue of damage lock, may I suggest that giving the Tengu a bonus to thermal as well as kinetic ala gurustas, might resolve that slight imbalance that seems to be there between the proposed missile T3s?
Eustise Mass Collapse It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake 6	Posted - 2017.05.30 22:16:41 - [37] - Quote Capqu wrote: damage seems a bit high in all covops configurations You get a full bonused offensive subsystem, and if you don't take the nullified, you don't even get the range penalty. However, you still do have a 5s cloak delay. Without the defensive you will be a glass cannon anyway.
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues Hookers N' Blow 34	Posted - 2017.05.30 23:54:24 - [38] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: A question triggered by this: From the Focus Group chat logs... wrote: [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 [21:13] ccp_fozzie: an art guy would come over to my desk and knock me out with one of those expensive digital drawing tablets Currently we've got 4 subsystem choices for each type, can you expand on why there's a limitation for only 3 now? Are the ships getting a complete remodel from scratch, or are you just binning off certain subsystems and now only have the art budget to maintain 3 of each of the 4 subsystems? I'm really hoping we're not going to lose out on some of the more distinct and pretty subsystem combos! I'd love to comment more on the balance side of things, but don't think there is enough of a full picture for it right now. Some of the ideas and changes to the subsystems sound promising though. Personally, IF and only IF it improves performance I would say just use one fixed art model for each T3C and dont bother having the model change for every system configuration. 95% of the player base doesnt zoom in on a t3 to admire the different system combos but 100% of the player base notices lag and tidi.
Novor Drethan Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.05.31 01:40:14 - [39] - Quote Eustise wrote: Capqu wrote: damage seems a bit high in all covops configurations You get a full bonused offensive subsystem, and if you don't take the nullified you don't even get the range penalty. It does seem a bit strong but without the defensive you will be a glass cannon anyway. We're all just waiting on basestats to really see where we are. It would boast a similar tank and DPS to Black Ops ships, which can't use Covert Cloaks and don't have Interdiction Nullification. We were told Black Ops can't use Covert Cloaks because they'd be overpowered, so why can T3Cs use them if they have similar stats in the end, in addition to Interdiction Nullification?
Kenbones Valkyrie Seventeenth Battalion Honorable Third Party 0	Posted - 2017.05.31 03:59:13 - [40] - Quote Novor Drethan wrote: Eustise wrote: Capqu wrote: damage seems a bit high in all covops configurations You get a full bonused offensive subsystem, and if you don't take the nullified you don't even get the range penalty. It does seem a bit strong but without the defensive you will be a glass cannon anyway. We're all just waiting on basestats to really see where we are. It would boast a similar tank and DPS to Black Ops ships, which can't use Covert Cloaks and don't have Interdiction Nullification. We were told Black Ops can't use Covert Cloaks because they'd be overpowered, so why can T3Cs use them if they have similar stats in the end, in addition to Interdiction Nullification? From what numbers I can fudge together, some of the DPS numbers are awfully close to a Black ops battleship but with the proposed T3D resist profile I suspect the tank will be significantly less than a Black ops. The Loki is still rather anemic DPS wise compared to the rest. With the covert ops cloaking ability on the defensive subsystem CCP is going to have a difficult time balancing DPS numbers of cloaky T3Cs while trying to not nerf the DPS numbers to the point that its not viable in other uses.

Soleil Fournier Black Serpent Technologies The-Culture 187	Posted - 2017.05.31 05:31:36 - [41] - Quote One of the major problems with T3 is being stuck with a subsystem/role/bonus you don't want just to hit a particular slot layout. So lets say I want the Overheat Subsystem but Need the extra low slot in order to make my fit work, I'm forced to choose one of the other subsystems. Or that I need the extra mid slot of the overheat subsystem but want the Cap/PWG bonus....I'm stuck getting a bonus I don't want just to make the slot layout work. This isn't a great experience. So the suggestion is to remove slot bonuses from subsystems and make slots standardized on T3 hulls (per racial of course). This puts the focus on building your T3 ship based on the role/bonus you want without having to be forced into a subsystem you don't want just for the slot layout. This should also make balancing easier because you already know the slot layout and can adjust bonuses/hardpoints as necessary. (Or alternatively, remove slot bonuses from all subsystems and add a 4th subsystem that has a slot bonus specifically)
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 805	Posted - 2017.05.31 06:04:41 - [42] - Quote Kenbones Valkyrie wrote: Novor Drethan wrote: Eustise wrote: Capqu wrote: damage seems a bit high in all covops configurations You get a full bonused offensive subsystem, and if you don't take the nullified you don't even get the range penalty. It does seem a bit strong but without the defensive you will be a glass cannon anyway. We're all just waiting on basestats to really see where we are. It would boast a similar tank and DPS to Black Ops ships, which can't use Covert Cloaks and don't have Interdiction Nullification. We were told Black Ops can't use Covert Cloaks because they'd be overpowered, so why can T3Cs use them if they have similar stats in the end, in addition to Interdiction Nullification? From what numbers I can fudge together, some of the DPS numbers are awfully close to a Black ops battleship but with the proposed T3D resist profile I suspect the tank will be significantly less than a Black ops. The Loki is still rather anemic DPS wise compared to the rest. With the covert ops cloaking ability on the defensive subsystem CCP is going to have a difficult time balancing DPS numbers of cloaky T3Cs while trying to not nerf the DPS numbers to the point that its not viable in other uses. Maybe if the cloaking sub removed a turret/launcher and a high slot when equipped the DPS numbers could be brought down to a bit more reasonable numbers. High slot is needed for cloak+probes. Cloaky hunters. Frankly it will be glass cannons (and not very big cannons) with current bonuses. 1. "Increase cost slightly" cost of what? Hull? Subsystems? It's kinda opposite to versatility of the whole idea. 2. How much cargo space on those? 3. Subsystems bay maybe? 4. How harsh nullification debuffs will be? (I'm happy with not removing option to covop+nullification) I'm playing with Tengu combinations and it took to me to a strange places I never been before, started to check my fleet support skills for fleet bursts... "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Kenbones Valkyrie Seventeenth Battalion Honorable Third Party 0	Posted - 2017.05.31 06:22:09 - [43] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Kenbones Valkyrie wrote: Novor Drethan wrote: Eustise wrote: Capqu wrote: damage seems a bit high in all covops configurations You get a full bonused offensive subsystem, and if you don't take the nullified you don't even get the range penalty. It does seem a bit strong but without the defensive you will be a glass cannon anyway. We're all just waiting on basestats to really see where we are. It would boast a similar tank and DPS to Black Ops ships, which can't use Covert Cloaks and don't have Interdiction Nullification. We were told Black Ops can't use Covert Cloaks because they'd be overpowered, so why can T3Cs use them if they have similar stats in the end, in addition to Interdiction Nullification? From what numbers I can fudge together, some of the DPS numbers are awfully close to a Black ops battleship but with the proposed T3D resist profile I suspect the tank will be significantly less than a Black ops. The Loki is still rather anemic DPS wise compared to the rest. With the covert ops cloaking ability on the defensive subsystem CCP is going to have a difficult time balancing DPS numbers of cloaky T3Cs while trying to not nerf the DPS numbers to the point that its not viable in other uses. Maybe if the cloaking sub removed a turret/launcher and a high slot when equipped the DPS numbers could be brought down to a bit more reasonable numbers. High slot is needed for cloak+probes. Cloaky hunters. Frankly it will be glass cannons (and not very big cannons) with current bonuses. 1. "Increase cost slightly" cost of what? Hull? Subsystems? It's kinda opposite to versatility of the whole idea. 2. How much cargo space on those? 3. Subsystems bay maybe? 4. How harsh nullification debuffs will be? (I'm happy with not removing option to covop+nullification) I'm playing with Tengu combinations and it took to me to a strange places I never been before, started to check my fleet support skills for fleet bursts... I was suggesting removing 1 launcher/turret and high slot. For example, the Proteus would have 7 high slots/5 turrets on its primary weapons sub instead of 8 high slots/6 turrets. I know this isn't a perfect solution as the Proteus also has a drone sub and dropping a turret would be less of a nerf.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 805	Posted - 2017.05.31 06:31:40 - [44] - Quote Kenbones Valkyrie wrote: I was suggesting removing 1 launcher/turret and high slot. For example, the Proteus would have 7 high slots/5 turrets on its primary weapons sub instead of 8 high slots/6 turrets. I know this isn't a perfect solution as the Proteus also has a drone sub and dropping a turret would be less of a nerf. It would be direct nerf to tank and dps on cloaky hunters T3C. I got another one: should covert+nullfied setups carry cyno? Maybe nullifing should remove ability to carry one? "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Kenbones Valkyrie Seventeenth Battalion Honorable Third Party 0	Posted - 2017.05.31 07:08:08 - [45] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: I got another one: should covert+nullfied setups carry cyno? Maybe nullifing should remove ability to carry one? From what has been posted this is already getting a nerf. The base agility is being reduced causing an even longer align time for the nullification subsystem. Honestly if you are going to be caught by cloaky nullified T3Cs then you would also likely be caught by sub 2 second warp suicide cyno interceptors and I don't hear anyone calling for them to be removed.
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 1193	Posted - 2017.05.31 07:10:20 - [46] - Quote There is a lot of bonuses in those offensive subs..A lot... Considering Loki i don't like extra launcher in gun sub and extra guns on missile ones with 37+3 Mbit/sec bandwidth... in all honesty i am sick of it but there is that extra launcher in there over current setup with all possible bonuses added to them so who knows ....two neuts...shiet ton of drone bay space < -_- > i hope. You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear Because >>I is too hard
Mr Floydy Footloose Phoebe Freeport Republic 360	Posted - 2017.05.31 07:38:16 - [47] - Quote Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote: Personally, IF and only IF it improves performance I would say just use one fixed art model for each T3C and dont bother having the model change for every system configuration. 95% of the player base doesnt zoom in on a t3 to admire the different system combos but 100% of the player base notices lag and tidi. I doubt that 95% has any basis in fact. Regardless, I would be surprised if T3s made any notable contribution to lag and tidi than many other things - certain drones/missiles/bubbles will all be far bigger contributers. Not to mention the idea of completely removing the unique and interesting art side of things would completely remove the gameplay of trying to work out what fits you could be fighting against from the look of the hulls. If you've never done that I'm going to assume you've never really hunted solo T3s / done much small scale pvp with them.
Novor Drethan Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.05.31 09:14:21 - [48] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: 1. "Increase cost slightly" cost of what? Hull? Subsystems? It's kinda opposite to versatility of the whole idea. T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are. If you buy a HIC, you're stuck with a HIC. You can't change it into a HAC or logi. But you can change the role of your T3C, so it should have a hefty premium in terms of cost. Think about it: it's cheaper to buy a specialized tool than it is to buy an all-in-one tool.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 805	Posted - 2017.05.31 09:59:30 - [49] - Quote Novor Drethan wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: 1. "Increase cost slightly" cost of what? Hull? Subsystems? It's kinda opposite to versatility of the whole idea. T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are. If you buy a HIC, you're stuck with a HIC. You can't change it into a HAC or logi. But you can change the role of your T3C, so it should have a hefty premium in terms of cost. Think about it: it's cheaper to buy a specialized tool than it is to buy an all-in-one tool. Quote: Honestly if you are going to be caught by cloaky nullified T3Cs then you would also likely be caught by sub 2 second warp suicide cyno interceptors and I don't hear anyone calling for them to be removed. Just a tad unrelated, but people were calling for the removal of interdiction nullification from the combat interceptors because of how overwhelming they can be in groups. T3Cs with covert cloaks, interdiction nullification, and offensive subsystems are going to be far worse in comparison, and completely uncatchable even with the slower align time if they keep some warp core stabs in their cargo and swap out when traveling. We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap. As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Novor Drethan Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.05.31 10:14:33 - [50] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap. As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf. SP loss only matters if you lose the ship. Do everything right and the hull is relatively cheap for what it's capable of doing. The upfront cost should be higher. SP loss also unfairly hurts newer players. Older players who typically have most of the skills they want trained up don't have to sacrifice anything to train their subsystem skills back up, but newer players have to choose between the subsystems or other important skills they haven't trained yet. The decreased lock range isn't that big of a deal if you're being bridged in by a Blops to gank a target, which is what the cloaked + nullified + offensive T3Cs are going to be doing. The decreased agility and increased signature radius don't matter if you fit warp core stabs in your lows when traveling -- again, something that isn't an issue if you're being bridged by Blops anyway. I was going to suggest an increased delay in lock time after decloaking, but even that doesn't matter if the target is already pointed by a cloaked T3C that's fit for heavy tackle.

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 805	Posted - 2017.05.31 11:30:43 - [51] - Quote Novor Drethan wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap. As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf. SP loss only matters if you lose the ship. Do everything right and the hull is relatively cheap for what it's capable of doing. The upfront cost should be higher. SP loss also unfairly hurts newer players. Older players who typically have most of the skills they want trained up don't have to sacrifice anything to train their subsystem skills back up, but newer players have to choose between the subsystems or other important skills they haven't trained yet. The decreased lock range isn't that big of a deal if you're being bridged in by a Blops to gank a target, which is what the cloaked + nullified + offensive T3Cs are going to be doing. The decreased agility and increased signature radius don't matter if you fit warp core stabs in your lows when traveling -- again, something that isn't an issue if you're being bridged by Blops anyway. I was going to suggest an increased delay in lock time after decloaking, but even that doesn't matter if the target is already pointed by a cloaked T3C that's fit for heavy tackle. We don't really now for sure how capable will be the hulls after rebalance so already annoucing cost increase is a bit premature. They are super op now they will be nerfed and more expensive after? SP loss is not connected to player in-game age. We have injectors now. It doesn't matter if player can or not afford it. Every rebalance done to them is from pvp fleet perspective not explorers, blops etc. So having a nullifing will also bring nerfs if used. So: Novor Drethan wrote: Just a tad unrelated, but people were calling for the removal of interdiction nullification from the combat interceptors because of how overwhelming they can be in groups. T3Cs with covert cloaks, interdiction nullification, and offensive subsystems are going to be far worse in comparison, and completely uncatchable even with the slower align time if they keep some warp core stabs in their cargo and swap out when traveling. May happen for solo, but nodoby will use stabs in fleet combat or any pvp. We need more data, sigularity release would be good to play with fits. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Predator BOA Lost Boys. 3	Posted - 2017.05.31 11:34:17 - [52] - Quote Hi All I think so far there going to be to many high slot , so far with the cloak and DPS subsystem you can get 8 high slots, with only 6 guns that you can use. The Defensive Subsystem should give you the same number as high slot as guns that you can use on it. So if you want to use Clock , Prob and Dps hunter you either have 6 guns and a cloak or 5 guns cloak and probs, not all three. Plus the Mids slot need a look at I reckon. Take the extra high slot and put it towards a mid. Look at the legion as an example, it gets max 3 mids for a DPS boat or low as 2 , less than a proteus. That's what I see in the graph so far of cause.
Mr Floydy Footloose Phoebe Freeport Republic 360	Posted - 2017.05.31 11:56:49 - [53] - Quote Predator BOA wrote: Hi All I think so far there going to be to many high slot , so far with the cloak and DPS subsystem you can get 8 high slots, with only 6 guns that you can use. The Defensive Subsystem should give you the same number as high slot as guns that you can use on it. So if you want to use Clock , Prob and Dps hunter you either have 6 guns and a cloak or 5 guns cloak and probs, not all three. Plus the Mids slot need a look at I reckon. Take the extra high slot and put it towards a mid. Look at the legion as an example, it gets max 3 mids for a DPS boat or low as 2 , less than a proteus. That's what I see in the graph so far of cause. I don't know about the slot layout being a problem yet. Taking your Legion example, a pure buffer tanked dps Legion gets 2 mids if you go with the base speed / agility subsystem. Whilst that's definitely lacking it's unlikely to be used as a solo roaming fit, so let's assume it's a prop mod and a cap booster to keep the lasers firing. You've then got 8 low slots for tank and dps mods along with 7 highslots to put your guns and some utility into. Want an extra mid for some tackle, switch to the other prop mod at the expense of a low slot - you've still got 7. As Fozzie said on the chat, ignore the utliity highs for the like for like comparisons to the current T3s right now. This current pass has an extra slot vs the current build, all 4 T3s now have a utility high slot in any dps fit. I'm pretty happy with a cloaky / probe fit having 8 high slots too. Full set of guns, cloak and a probe launcher. It's a change in direction from current but I think it's too early to say it's bad. The balance of the new T3s is all going to come down to the base stats; hitpoints, signature, base speed and fitting. Right now the main thing to look at is whether these subsystem combos are interesting. I'm really liking the various overheat related changes. I think it's definitely a good way to limit some strong bonuses too - in theory you could have them able to out perform (or just match) other ship classes, but only be able to do it in a burst - thus balancing them out somewhat.
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 514	Posted - 2017.05.31 12:52:16 - [54] - Quote Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete. And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3612	Posted - 2017.05.31 14:09:05 - [55] - Quote I have always seen the variable slot layouts as a balancing nightmare. Giving the ships a default slot layout and then having the subsystems modify that would be a much easier way to balance the ships. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues Hookers N' Blow 35	Posted - 2017.05.31 14:27:15 - [56] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote: Personally, IF and only IF it improves performance I would say just use one fixed art model for each T3C and dont bother having the model change for every system configuration. 95% of the player base doesnt zoom in on a t3 to admire the different system combos but 100% of the player base notices lag and tidi. I doubt that 95% has any basis in fact. Regardless, I would be surprised if T3s made any notable contribution to lag and tidi than many other things - certain drones/missiles/bubbles will all be far bigger contributers. Not to mention the idea of completely removing the unique and interesting art side of things would completely remove the gameplay of trying to work out what fits you could be fighting against from the look of the hulls. If you've never done that I'm going to assume you've never really hunted solo T3s / done much small scale pvp with them. I feel you, if it doesnt improve performance of the game then it doesnt matter, but I thought I read somewhere that the subsystems add to the lag problems. Could be wrong.
Aleverette Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 18	Posted - 2017.05.31 14:36:35 - [57] - Quote Well, since you are planning to rebalance ships that are naturally against EVE's logic. Nothing we can say but to see right?
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues Hookers N' Blow 35	Posted - 2017.05.31 14:38:25 - [58] - Quote Novor Drethan wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: We'll have SP for that, no need to increase costs of subsystem. An all-in-one tool is usually crap. As for covert nullification: read the nullification proposal, it is a huge nerf. SP loss only matters if you lose the ship. Do everything right and the hull is relatively cheap for what it's capable of doing. The upfront cost should be higher. SP loss also unfairly hurts newer players. Older players who typically have most of the skills they want trained up don't have to sacrifice anything to train their subsystem skills back up, but newer players have to choose between the subsystems or other important skills they haven't trained yet. The decreased lock range isn't that big of a deal if you're being bridged in by a Blops to gank a target, which is what the cloaked + nullified + offensive T3Cs are going to be doing. The decreased agility and increased signature radius don't matter if you fit warp core stabs in your lows when traveling -- again, something that isn't an issue if you're being bridged by Blops anyway. I was going to suggest an increased delay in lock time after decloaking, but even that doesn't matter if the target is already pointed by a cloaked T3C that's fit for heavy tackle. Good points. Personally I dont see why there is SP loss, just make it a higher up front cost. The SP thing is a legacy thing they should get rid of.
Aleverette Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 18	Posted - 2017.05.31 14:48:58 - [59] - Quote According to the draft: a 8-7-2 Loki and 8-8-1 Tengu? Dude sign me in!
Novor Drethan Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2017.05.31 15:29:21 - [60] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete. And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing. It shouldn't be CCP's job to make sure the players have ships that do everything they want. It's the players who need to adapt. I would love if my Marauder had better resists or the ability to use a MJD when in Bastion, but CCP has rejected both those things. Why? Well, for balance. I don't believe a ship that can fit a covert cloak, interdiction nullification, and 6 bonused turrets/launchers is balanced. There's a reason Recon Ships don't have spectacular DPS and tank. There's a reason they don't have interdiction nullification. There's a reason Black Ops Battleships can't fit covert cloaks. All of that reasoning goes out the window with T3Cs though. It's as though every other ship in the game is balanced by one standard while T3Cs are balanced by another, and it certainly doesn't help that so many players support that. 1. T3Cs are Cruisers. They are not Battlecruisers. They are not Battleships. 2. Being T3 does not justify them being fundamentally broken in terms of balance. T3Ds were just rebalanced by CCP, and they seem to be in a good place. They are very much Destroyer hulls. They don't compete all that much with Cruisers, and they certainly don't compete with Battlecruisers. T3Cs should be very much the same, relative to their hull size. 3. Cost is not a proper balancing tool when used as an excuse to try and justify an unbalanced ship. We know this. Marauders are 10x as much as T1 Battleships, but CCP refuses to give them T2 resists -- they cost as much as Dreadnaughts, but don't perform anywhere near the same level. The same should be true of T3Cs. You shouldn't be paying all that extra isk for a brokenly powerful ship. You should be paying that isk for a ship that's versatile and can adapt to many different roles -- unlike T2 ships, which are limited to specific roles. This really all seems like common sense, but T3Cs have been so strong for so long that people simply aren't willing to admit that they need a much more extensive nerf than we're currently seeing. I think that this should be the goal.

Novor Drethan Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2017.05.31 15:46:39 - [61] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete. And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing. Both Astero and Stratios are able to fulfill their roles in exploration without interdiction nullification. There's no reason T3Cs need it for a similar role. If we're talking about using T3Cs to drop covert cynos on targets for Blops bridges, I'm still not a fan. I can see why people would want to keep that functionality for T3Cs, but there's simply too little risk involved for the potential reward. Covert Ops and Recon Ships are all expected to move through space without interdiction nullification. Surely there must be balance reasons for that, so I don't see why T3Cs should be exempt. Perhaps one of the developers could chime in and explain why no other ships in the game (save for Interceptors) were given interdiction nullification. I would love to have it on my Panther or Deimos, honestly.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 806	Posted - 2017.05.31 15:54:23 - [62] - Quote Novor Drethan wrote: Noxisia Arkana wrote: Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete. And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing. Both Astero and Stratios are able to fulfill their roles in exploration without interdiction nullification. There's no reason T3Cs need it for a similar role. If we're talking about using T3Cs to drop covert cynos on targets for Blops bridges, I'm still not a fan. I can see why people would want to keep that functionality for T3Cs, but there's simply too little risk involved for the potential reward. Covert Ops and Recon Ships are all expected to move through space without interdiction nullification. Surely there must be balance reasons for that, so I don't see why T3Cs should be exempt. Perhaps one of the developers could chime in and explain why no other ships in the game (save for Interceptors) were given interdiction nullification. I would love to have it on my Panther or Deimos, honestly. So, remove nullification completely? Why saves for ceptors? They are fast enough to run from inside bubbles anyway. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Novor Drethan Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2017.05.31 16:02:19 - [63] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: So, remove nullification completely? Why saves for ceptors? They are fast enough to run from inside bubbles anyway. I don't think it needs to be removed, just heavily penalized -- for both Interceptors and T3Cs. There should be a loss of offensive capabilities and the ability to fit or light cynos. The latter of which will make people riot, of course. I imagine people are already looking for me in-game or writing up death threats for simply putting it out there as a suggestion. We already have a ship that can fit covert cloaks and has bonuses for cynosural fields: Force Recons. They aren't being used for that because T3Cs do a much better job and, again, they don't have interdiction nullification. So I'm curious as to why CCP thought those T2 hulls didn't deserve interdiction nullification while T3Cs do.
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 514	Posted - 2017.05.31 16:25:32 - [64] - Quote My hope would be that nullified t3s aren't impossible to catch as they are now; align times / sig radius increases - these will affect how these ships work. But they can still be effective in grabbing tackle through a bubble in null or doing exploration.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 806	Posted - 2017.05.31 16:27:04 - [65] - Quote Novor Drethan wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: So, remove nullification completely? Why saves for ceptors? They are fast enough to run from inside bubbles anyway. I don't think it needs to be removed, just heavily penalized -- for both Interceptors and T3Cs. There should be a loss of offensive capabilities and the ability to fit or light cynos. The latter of which will make people riot, of course. I imagine people are already looking for me in-game or writing up death threats for simply putting it out there as a suggestion. We already have a ship that can fit covert cloaks and has bonuses for cynosural fields: Force Recons. They aren't being used for that because T3Cs do a much better job and, again, they don't have interdiction nullification. So I'm curious as to why CCP thought those T2 hulls didn't deserve interdiction nullification while T3Cs do. Because everything need counter-measure, and no cloak is not a counter-measure for interdiction bubbles. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Novor Drethan Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2017.05.31 16:50:36 - [66] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Because everything need counter-measure, and no cloak is not a counter-measure for interdiction bubbles. Why should it take more to counter T3Cs when they're providing the role of Force Recons than it takes to counter Force Recons? Or the Stratios, a hull that's primarily for exploration? If T3Cs can do a better job at exploration than an SoE ship, for what reason would you use that SoE ship? And no, cost is not a acceptable answer. You're paying more for T3Cs because they can change their roles. They can be a Stratios one day, a Command Ship the next, and a HAC the day after. If you wanted to do that without a T3C, you'd need to buy 3 different hulls, so T3Cs will always be the better options -- regardless of cost. That's why it can't be used for balance, and T3Cs instead need to be kept away from the roles that existing ships provide. If T3Cs can fit a covert cloak and bonuses to EWAR, they will always be better options than Recon Ships because of 1. interdiction nullification and 2. the fact that they can swap roles at a later date. It's cheaper to buy a Proteus and a few extra subsystems than it is to buy a Deimos, a Lachesis, and an Astarte.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 806	Posted - 2017.05.31 17:10:37 - [67] - Quote Novor Drethan wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Because everything need counter-measure, and no cloak is not a counter-measure for interdiction bubbles. Why should it take more to counter T3Cs when they're providing the role of Force Recons than it takes to counter Force Recons? Or the Stratios, a hull that's primarily for exploration? If T3Cs can do a better job at exploration than an SoE ship, for what reason would you use that SoE ship? And no, cost is not a acceptable answer. You're paying more for T3Cs because they can change their roles. They can be a Stratios one day, a Command Ship the next, and a HAC the day after. If you wanted to do that without a T3C, you'd need to buy 3 different hulls, so T3Cs will always be the better options -- regardless of cost. That's why it can't be used for balance, and T3Cs instead need to be kept away from the roles that existing ships provide. If T3Cs can fit a covert cloak and bonuses to EWAR, they will always be better options than Recon Ships because of 1. interdiction nullification and 2. the fact that they can swap roles at a later date. It's cheaper to buy a Proteus and a few extra subsystems than it is to buy a Deimos, a Lachesis, and an Astarte. Your own words: Novor Drethan wrote: T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are. + SP loss. You already answer your own question. T3C will be worse in any given role than T2 counterparts. BTW do you fly T3C, because you sound like theorist. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Novor Drethan Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2017.05.31 17:28:38 - [68] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Your own words: Novor Drethan wrote: T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are. + SP loss. You already answer your own question. T3C will be worse in any given role than T2 counterparts. BTW do you fly T3C, because you sound like theorist. They won't be worse than their counterparts because they'll have abilities their counterparts don't have. T2 ships are balanced for a specific role. T3Cs can provide that role without sacrificing the same things that T2 ships have to. T3Cs should be expensive because they are multiple hulls in one. They can swap roles whenever necessary, unlike T2 ships. That is why they should cost a premium. It does not mean that they should be on par with T2 ships in the roles that T2 ships provide. Recon Ships provide greater range for EWAR than T3Cs, but they lack the same level of tank and a dead Recon Ship is a useless Recon Ship. The same goes for logi, especially now that they'll be providing boosts. The same goes for Force Recons in particular. What is the point in having a role bonus for cynosural fields and covert cloaks if T3Cs are used instead for that role because of interdiction nullification? Instead of being used for the role bonus that Force Recon provide, they're used for EWAR -- but again, not nearly as effective as T3C with how squishy they are in comparison.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 806	Posted - 2017.05.31 18:12:54 - [69] - Quote Novor Drethan wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Your own words: Novor Drethan wrote: T3Cs should be incredibly expensive because of how versatile they are. + SP loss. You already answer your own question. T3C will be worse in any given role than T2 counterparts. BTW do you fly T3C, because you sound like theorist. They won't be worse than their counterparts because they'll have abilities their counterparts don't have. T2 ships are balanced for a specific role. T3Cs can provide that role without sacrificing the same things that T2 ships have to. T3Cs should be expensive because they are multiple hulls in one. They can swap roles whenever necessary, unlike T2 ships. That is why they should cost a premium. It does not mean that they should be on par with T2 ships in the roles that T2 ships provide. Recon Ships provide greater range for EWAR than T3Cs, but they lack the same level of tank and a dead Recon Ship is a useless Recon Ship. The same goes for logi, especially now that they'll be providing boosts. The same goes for Force Recons in particular. What is the point in having a role bonus for cynosural fields and covert cloaks if T3Cs are used instead for that role because of interdiction nullification? Instead of being used for the role bonus that Force Recon provide, they're used for EWAR -- but again, not nearly as effective as T3C with how squishy they are in comparison. I have no idea what you are writing about. You want a premium price for a hull that is worse than T2 but have some abilities that their counterparts won't have (interdiction nullifiing I presume). Did you ever bother to read proposed changes to T3C, because I don't think so. Tank resists will be nerfed below T2, nullifing sub will have serious drawbacks, cloak will have less than average tank. The only thing that may be usefull is interdiction nullifing subsystem to travel. Nobody will fly a hull that will cost fitting+spare subsystems = rook+basilisk+nighthawk+cerberus. That will be 1,5 bil ISK and it's not guarantee that you'll use all that stuff. It won't be worth it. The fact you think T3 are so versatible or will be so shows you have very to none experience to them. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3612	Posted - 2017.05.31 18:31:02 - [70] - Quote IMO, I would like to see all offensive subs lose a hard point and a fitting slot, they just seems to have too much as proposed. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues Hookers N' Blow 35	Posted - 2017.05.31 19:12:11 - [71] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: [quote=Novor Drethan][quote=Jeremiah Saken]Your own words: I have no idea what you are writing about. You want a premium price for a hull that is worse than T2 but have some abilities that their counterparts won't have (interdiction nullifiing I presume). Did you ever bother to read proposed changes to T3C, because I don't think so. Tank resists will be nerfed below T2, nullifing sub will have serious drawbacks, cloak will have less than average tank. The only thing that may be usefull is interdiction nullifing subsystem to travel. Nobody will fly a hull that will cost fitting+spare subsystems = rook+basilisk+nighthawk+cerberus. That will be 1,5 bil ISK and it's not guarantee that you'll use all that stuff. It won't be worth it. The fact you think T3 are so versatible or will be so shows you have very to none experience to them. I think you guys are getting off topic, or a little extreme. Nobody is suggesting T3C's should be 1.5B a pop. What most people are saying or implying is they should be a bit more expensive. Currently they cost approximately: 115mm for the hull and 140mm for the subsystems, so lets call it 250mm. My read is most people think we should drop the SP loss and increase the upfront cost, i would assume to the tune of 375mm-500mm for the hull plus subsystems. To me that kinda makes sense. Especially since the rigs can be removed and swapped. (they only are destroyed on death) and especially since we are going from 5 to 4 subsystems, if prices stay the same we are talking a decrease in the cost by 1 subsystem.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 806	Posted - 2017.05.31 20:16:20 - [72] - Quote Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: [quote=Novor Drethan][quote=Jeremiah Saken]Your own words: I have no idea what you are writing about. You want a premium price for a hull that is worse than T2 but have some abilities that their counterparts won't have (interdiction nullifiing I presume). Did you ever bother to read proposed changes to T3C, because I don't think so. Tank resists will be nerfed below T2, nullifing sub will have serious drawbacks, cloak will have less than average tank. The only thing that may be usefull is interdiction nullifing subsystem to travel. Nobody will fly a hull that will cost fitting+spare subsystems = rook+basilisk+nighthawk+cerberus. That will be 1,5 bil ISK and it's not guarantee that you'll use all that stuff. It won't be worth it. The fact you think T3 are so versatible or will be so shows you have very to none experience to them. I think you guys are getting off topic, or a little extreme. Nobody is suggesting T3C's should be 1.5B a pop. What most people are saying or implying is they should be a bit more expensive. Currently they cost approximately: 115mm for the hull and 140mm for the subsystems, so lets call it 250mm. My read is most people think we should drop the SP loss and increase the upfront cost, i would assume to the tune of 375mm-500mm for the hull plus subsystems. To me that kinda makes sense. Especially since the rigs can be removed and swapped. (they only are destroyed on death) and especially since we are going from 5 to 4 subsystems, if prices stay the same we are talking a decrease in the cost by 1 subsystem. I don't know where they'll land but my tengu is already 1,2 bil a pop (fits+one subsystem for a change+ SP loss and it's not bling fit). Fozzie suggested they should be more expensive and removing SP loss will not occur. So w will have a hull that is more expensive than marauder. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1264	Posted - 2017.05.31 20:28:31 - [73] - Quote all the bonuses just seem too strong on the WIP... although its harder too know without the base stats etc.. I would like too know CCP Fozzies views on the cost increase thats mentioned and why? Also are you trying too achieve the jack of all trades at a navy level or is that no longer the goal? .. and in that case what is the outcome you're trying too achieve here? and where will these fit in compared too T1/T2? I'm not really seeing any significant nerfs here... only buffs really also strongly feel that the versatility aspect isn't going too happen when you have all the stats/slots in the subs instead of baked into the hull and still keeping rigs and you're talking about a price increase aswell ... T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3199	Posted - 2017.05.31 20:55:43 - [74] - Quote General thoughts: 1. I like the move to replace the old engineering and electronics subsystems with the core subsystems. It seems like all of the old bonuses have been kept, just in a more manageable format. 2. I also like the move to combine the covert and probing subsystems into a single subsystem. 3. One beef that I have always had with T3s is their rigs. They're already the most customizable ships in the game, so why do they get three rig slots and 400 calibration? T2 ships only get two slots and Pirate ships get 350 calibration. I really feel that T3s should have less rig capability than T2/Pirate ships, not more, especially if they gain the ability to swap rigs. 4. I like the increased focus on overheat-related bonuses. Should make for some really interesting gameplay. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs
Cartheron Crust Matari Exodus 209	Posted - 2017.05.31 22:32:46 - [75] - Quote Reading quite a bit of these slack chats. Interesting stuff being bounced about. Cheers for this transparent access. Just one thing. I am pretty sure 8 slots for high, mid or low is going to be overpowered on any of the T3C's. Especially the mids and lows. Though I am saying this without seeing full stats obviously so if they get "rebalanced" enough it will be ok. There are already very few ships with 8 slots in a given rack and they tend to be BS's or just the high slots. I think this is for a particular reason. 8 slots is very powerful.
Mr Rive Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 162	Posted - 2017.06.01 00:24:42 - [76] - Quote I've been looking at the t3c thing for a while now, and considering what possible changes you might make. I thought there was a reasonable chance that you would buff remote rep power from t3's. Honestly, I think you're going too far currently with the amount of bonuses you're giving them. Think about it, every fleet in the game right now is forced to use either t2 logi, or triage, in every fleet. Theyre the weak link. Both either rely on sig tanking, or their massive local tank to stay alive, and require the entire fleet structure to be built around them. Currently you're proposing ships which have almost 300% more EHP than even the most tanky t2 logi, they're also going to rep more, and have more than enough range to make them viable in any scenario a t2 logi would work. My suggestion? Give them a solid optimal range, but cut their falloff. Something like 30km range on remote armor with 12k falloff, and 20km range with 30k falloff on remote shield. This will make them viable in some scenarios, but t2 logi is still going to be viable for mobile fleets. I would also consider the cap stability of t3 logi before you sink your teeth into them so heavily. Currently there is no ship in the game that can reliably cap transfer at mid range in a fleet which outright requires over 200k ehp. My suggestion would be to ensure that either you make them viably cap stable by themselves, or change the bonuses so legions and tengus get a bonus to transfers. This would make even more sense if you were to reduce the range, as it would not make transfers too powerful. You could even force the transfers to be short range, so that logis have to stick together, but still have enough range on the remote shield and armor reps for fleet cohesion. Bare in mind, if you make t3 logis the go to for every kind of fleet doctrine, that is going to MASSIVELY effect how the meta currently stands. There is a very fine line to be tread here, and I think right now you might be blowing way over that line. All that being said, we have needed new logi for a while. Theyre the one thing which currently holds fleet combat back. Skill means very little in a fleet battle where everything just gets vollied. Overall this is a step in the right direction.
Jimy F Aliastra Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2017.06.01 02:07:55 - [77] - Quote Hi I wish notice couple things, and mentions things i wish to see with t3c rework One is Loki offensive subsystem with missiles, i wish to see version with pure missile damage, making it hybrid missile, turret, drone damge subsystem is almost the same what it is now, i wish mention that this type subsystem\weapon system is almoust not use at all, u can go to killboard and chceck kills how often this is use, and how this work now, Loki with missile subsystem now; there is alomoust no one who use it https://zkillboard.com/ship/29990/losses/ and Typhon Navy with turret and missiles, in all cases ppl use additional hi slots for utility slots not for duble weapon system https://zkillboard.com/ship/32311/losses/ in this two cases u can see, if you check 100 or more killmails that this subsystem now and combination of this weapon system is not use at all, and sometimes when someone use it, he prabobly not use it any more, so it's waste, and making it this in that way, kill this subsystem, like it is now. Also if you put 5 launcher and 2 turrest, when u wish to get max dmg build for something, you lose 1 hi slot that means that all others can fit 1 utility more, neut or proble launcher, cloak or something, becouse they need only 6 turret/missile point, 6 hi slots, not 7, also you are not able to get damage amplifiers to all this weapon system on one ship, not mention that u can't fit also mods to accurity of all this weaopn systems, so damage lose is very big, and you lose a lot more dmg becuse u have explo velo bonus not dmg bonus, so your total damage is much lover, becouse u can't rise total damage cap, i think this will not work with this subsystem. Other thing i wish to see, wich i think is fine now, is old legion offensive missile subsystem, with focused missile weapon system, i think is no need to change it, adding drones is not very nice idea, becouse it will be secend scarlige, what is point making secend exacly the same ship? one more thing in this two things is that, drones are not cool choice i think, drones are not very good for pve, dies very often, so its big waste of DMG, take a lot of time to drop them and pull back when they are attacked, it is big dps lose to, pull full agro at exploration combat plex-s, wich is very big pain, so it may do, that we don't see this ships at ded combats sites at all or in wormholes sites. i play eve over 11 years, i know this from expirence, and i think this are better options then this from spreadsheet.
Gungrifin Revoria Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 0	Posted - 2017.06.01 02:54:45 - [78] - Quote Looking at the Loki, I think the slot layouts for the Web and Sensor Strength subsystems need to be switched. Currently the only practical way you fly with webs on the loki is armor. With these changes the max lows on the loki with the web subsystem would be 5; 1 down from the 6 that I believe is the defacto standard. In addition to this the proposed changes open up a 7mid shield webbing loki for the first time in forever; 8mid If you dont fit guns and fit the logi/burst sybsystem. Due to t2 Minmatar resists being extremly lenient on shield and practicaly requiring a kin + exp hardener no-matter what for armor, I believe the proposed webbing loki slot layout favors shield too much. I would love to see the armor web loki perserved post patch. If you switch the 3mid 1low of the web subsystem to 2mid 2low it evens out the max slot spread between lows and mids. In addition to this, if you dont switch but want max mid slots anyway for heavy shield fits you are required to use the webbing subsystem that you may or may not get use out of. By swaping the slot layouts you can preserve the heavy shield layout while not locking it into the web subsystem in addition to opening up webbing lokis to both shield and armor fleets instead of heavily favoring only shield.
TracyJordan Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2017.06.01 03:46:55 - [79] - Quote Would like to see a 25 m3/mbit drone bay/bandwidth on the Amarr laser sub. Only makes sense, Amarr being drone focused as well. Minmatar is not and they get drones on all subs. And while were at it can we kill the cap bonus and get something useful instaed?
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries 421	Posted - 2017.06.01 04:05:51 - [80] - Quote The correct answer to the "nullification isn't fair" objection is to add more nullification. Every covert ops ship should be immune to bubbles as well, and I wouldn't argue if other classes (HACs maybe?) got it as well. Getting kills in EVE should be more about successful hunting or mass fleet battles and less about setting up dozens of bubbles on a gate and insta-popping anything that jumps in.

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 806	Posted - 2017.06.01 07:12:53 - [81] - Quote Can we have maximum targets locked increased to 7? Even destroyers have more. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Gungrifin Revoria Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 0	Posted - 2017.06.01 08:31:45 - [82] - Quote We need to have a talk about the tank on the 8low legion. http://i.imgur.com/hJJt9lg.png This is using some modified subsystems in pyfa in order to get the slot layout correct. It is simulating the Passive Tank/Cap-PWG/RR-And-Burst/Speed-Agility subsystems. I tried my best to leave all of the rest of the numbers on the subsystems the same as they are currently on TQ seeing as we dont actually know what those are going to be yet. This legion has High-Grade Slaves, 6% armor HP HG-1006, and max armor Damnation links applied to it. I would like to point to the base armor amount on the Augmented Plating that im using here. Yes, you read that right, I set that to 0. This legion with an 8low pure tank loadout is getting 413k EHP from just a 1600mm Imp Navy plate. If we were to set the armor from the subsystem back up to the base 3750 it would come out to around 698k EHP or something else insane like that. This thing can repair like 5-10% less hp/s than a guardian, while having a hilariously beefier tank on it. Going back to just the plate and 0 armor in the subsystem, it'll still hit 170k EHP easy if we take away the damnation+Implants. Replacing the trimark rigs with ancills (To combat some extreme nerfs to its pg) takes the EHP down to 104k and 90k with faction ENAMs instead of A-types. You can problably decrease that even further by swaping the damage control for a capacitor module but this is STILL better than the guardian's tank by a wide margin and we have yet to add the subsystem's armor back on. Lets say we do add the base armor back on. You only need 2625 base armor to hit these same numbers with just an 800mm Imp Navy plate. All in all we are talking a cut of like 33-40% to both armor amount and powergrid here. Now im sure that they wont even remotely operate the same, but I have absolutely no idea what it would take to keep this monster in line as-is and not completly neuter the ham/neut/laser legions. Im afraid a cursory look at the proteus reveals a similar story aswell.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1264	Posted - 2017.06.01 09:18:59 - [83] - Quote tengu should have the kinetic damage removed .. versatility and all and just leave the Rof and velocity bonus.. the dps on all T3 cruisers needs too drop somewhat .. they can kill a battleship afterall with the dps -EHP+ low sig- high resists they have T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Mr Floydy Footloose Phoebe Freeport Republic 360	Posted - 2017.06.01 10:19:18 - [84] - Quote Caught up on the overnight chat.... Re: Cargo, I'd love to see a dedicated bay for subsystems and potentially even deployables. Something I used to do regularly when more active was solo wormhole roaming with a Legion, carrying the appropriate refit subsystems to run a full covops setup for moving around was really tight to do and hugely limited your ability to actually carry any loot from sites. Doing the same sort of thing with a Tengu was nigh on impossible due to the amount of cargo you need just for enough missiles to clear a site. Having the dedicated cargo space for subsystems would open up this nomadic gameplay some more without really having any negative impact on a pure pvp stats perspective. Something I also saw queried in the chat was what happens to leaving a covops cloak fitted when you remove the cloaky subsystem - it stays fitted and offline, so you don't need the cargo space for it. I'm really hoping these changes don't impact the stats to the point where a solo wormhole site roamer becomes impossible.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3199	Posted - 2017.06.01 11:40:13 - [85] - Quote Harvey James wrote: tengu should have the kinetic damage removed .. versatility and all and just leave the Rof and velocity bonus.. Interesting point on the kinetic lock and versatility. I suspect that a lot of folks would gladly trade some raw kinetic DPS for lower-but-any-damage-type DPS, and this would be in line with the whole notion of T3 flexibility. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 806	Posted - 2017.06.01 11:40:39 - [86] - Quote Is tractor beam range/velocity on covop really that usefull? Maybe it could be switch for 10%/level hacking module range? "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 2	Posted - 2017.06.01 12:05:03 - [87] - Quote Legion -10% MWD Sig Bloom withot base speed or mwd speed bonus is useless.
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 1196	Posted - 2017.06.01 13:19:14 - [88] - Quote Jimy F wrote: Hi I wish notice couple things, and mentions things i wish to see with t3c rework One is Loki offensive subsystem with missiles, i wish to see version with pure missile damage, making it hybrid missile, turret, drone damge subsystem is almost the same what it is now, i wish mention that this type subsystem\weapon system is almoust not use at all, u can go to killboard and chceck kills how often this is use, and how this work now, Loki with missile subsystem now; there is alomoust no one who use it https://zkillboard.com/ship/29990/losses/ and Typhon Navy with turret and missiles, in all cases ppl use additional hi slots for utility slots not for duble weapon system https://zkillboard.com/ship/32311/losses/ in this two cases u can see, if you check 100 or more killmails that this subsystem now and combination of this weapon system is not use at all, and sometimes when someone use it, he prabobly not use it any more, so it's waste, and making it this in that way, kill this subsystem, like it is now. Also if you put 5 launcher and 2 turrest, when u wish to get max dmg build for something, you lose 1 hi slot that means that all others can fit 1 utility more, neut or proble launcher, cloak or something, becouse they need only 6 turret/missile point, 6 hi slots, not 7, also you are not able to get damage amplifiers to all this weapon system on one ship, not mention that u can't fit also mods to accurity of all this weaopn systems, so damage lose is very big, and you lose a lot more dmg becuse u have explo velo bonus not dmg bonus, so your total damage is much lover, becouse u can't rise total damage cap, i think this will not work with this subsystem. Other thing i wish to see, wich i think is fine now, is old legion offensive missile subsystem, with focused missile weapon system, i think is no need to change it, adding drones is not very nice idea, becouse it will be secend scarlige, what is point making secend exacly the same ship? one more thing in this two things is that, drones are not cool choice i think, drones are not very good for pve, dies very often, so its big waste of DMG, take a lot of time to drop them and pull back when they are attacked, it is big dps lose to, pull full agro at exploration combat plex-s, wich is very big pain, so it may do, that we don't see this ships at ded combats sites at all or in wormholes sites. i play eve over 11 years, i know this from expirence, and i think this are better options then this from spreadsheet. Agreed and i mention i am sick of this kinda thinking behind split weapon systems while i don't like pure missile system missile drone combo should be ok maybe 50m/bit for drones like legion but without drone dmg bonus or something, just don't repeat same mistakes like with typhoon no one capable of straight thinking will put guns on it or use last two high slot to put 2 guns on it. You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear Because >>I is too hard
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 807	Posted - 2017.06.01 14:54:01 - [89] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: Harvey James wrote: tengu should have the kinetic damage removed .. versatility and all and just leave the Rof and velocity bonus.. Interesting point on the kinetic lock and versatility. I suspect that a lot of folks would gladly trade some raw kinetic DPS for lower-but-any-damage-type DPS, and this would be in line with the whole notion of T3 flexibility. I know I would. Whole versatility with missiles is a lie. The most versatile weapon system are drones. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Kesthely Almost Dangerous Stranger Danger. 177	Posted - 2017.06.01 16:07:02 - [90] - Quote I don't know why everyone is so focused on the kinetic damage of the missile Tengu. Most other subsystems of all races get a 10% damage bonus (with exception of missile legion and Hybrid Tengu) The missile tengu gets 7.5% damage bonus for 3 damage types and 12.5% bonus for Kinetic. So slightly less, or slightly more depending on damage type. Overall the damage output of these changes seems a bit much anyway. Shortrange they all seem to be able to get 700+ paper dps. My Proposal: Cut the base damage bonus to 5% on non drone boats. Then give a overheat bonus that increases the effectiveness of overheating by 15% - 20% and you'll have a system thats synergizes a lot better with the overall overheating state of the strategic cruisers, and will have a little less impact on Hac's

Kasumi Shinra The Foundation Of Mammon 0	Posted - 2017.06.01 17:11:23 - [91] - Quote The draft looks way better than I first imagined - definitely opens up a lot more fitting options while also reducing raw pewpew numbers and keeping most unique roles intact. Heat bonus is also a very nice addition. Keep up the good job, guys. The proposed cap subsystem distribution might be an issue worth considering though. The regen bonus is vital for a couple of unique roles T3s currently fill. Especially with cloak now being an active tank defensive subsystem, both Tengu and Legion will struggle very hard to be a viable choice for their HK role. Same applies to the neut Legion. Please consider unifying cap bonuses all across the board to either be pool or regen instead of making half of the boats feel unloved. Another option might be to diligently adjust the base cap values on them (which currently are kind of fine on Legion, but complete ** on Tengu) to make sure people can fix it with flux coils when needed. Quote:** [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 The current cap pool bonus is pretty much useless on all o T3s honestly, even moreso after the introduction of cap batteries. The only reason people pick it over the regen one is to get the additional hardpoint (these are most certainly PvE Tengus making it popular on your breakdown, Fozzie). Scan res vs CPU and warp speed vs base speed preserve the current distinctions between these hulls, which is cool.
Toobo Project Fruit House Solyaris Chtonium 434	Posted - 2017.06.01 17:48:02 - [92] - Quote Plenty of people commenting here on the function, role and performance of new T3 balances. Some have asked about clarification on the 'cost' issue, but I didn't see it addressed much yet. I am not going to propose what should be done, but I think the following questions should be asked at this stage, maybe after that we can discuss more. 1. What does CCP and/or focus group think about the current price of T3s and their subs? * There has been a dramatic drop in price. Everything has ups and downs, but the degree of nose dive T3s have taken over the course of past year or so is remarkable, probably related to many other game changes not specific to T3 ships themselves. I do accept that it's free market, supply/demand, players will find the price balance, etc, but there is a reason why I ask what CCP/focus group think about the current prices of T3s a) Strat cruisers are made from resources that are harvested from very specific and quite different form of space - WH. What the final end product of resources harvested in such specific space will be priced at will have some impact on the 'value' of such space. Blue loot is probably the main portion of income now and traditionally valuable WH stuff like melted nano ribbons are pretty much at their lowest price point I remember since release of Apocrypha. b) This may be a bigger WH balance discussion if we cover the whole topic of resource harvesting and such from supply point of view, but what the T3s will end up as final product will have an impact on demand, and if the supply remained constant then the changes in demand (due to ship balancing) will play a role in the price. If there are both changes in supply and demand to some degree (as in 'increase in cost' expression mentioned here a few times), that will obviously also affect. 2. How wide spread/popular do you want T3cs to be in use? a) This is tied to ship balance that is being actively discussed here, but also relates to supply and demand side of things too. b) People have been saying that T3s are 'too good' at some things that T2 does, such as force recons and HACs roles. But have you seen such dramatic drop in price for force recon and HACs in the same period? T3s are 'too good' but their price has been crashing? What do you think about that? c) Do you want these 'nerfed' or 'rebalanced' T3 cruisers to be flown a lot en masse? or become main stay of doctrines? Or do you want them to be a jack of all trades that has good utility for a very small gang with limited number of pilots but not necessarily needed in big numbers, etc. d) Are we going for the early phase T3D scenario where T3 cruisers become cheap and jolly ships that you see everywhere in every space? Not necessarily as OP as some T3D had been but being so cheap and versatile that they can be a go-to ship for most pilots? e) if 'price of a ship' is not a balancing factor, I do not know what is the reason to fly any T1 class ship for which there is a T2 version (except for BL Ops maybe), and I do not see any reason to fly T1 cruiser than any of the T3s, unless you nerf T3 to be somehow worse than T1 cruiser, which I don't believe will be the direction this is heading or neither has this ever been intended/implied. On the pure merits of their performance, role and specialisation, yes, I can see scenarios where T2 could be preferred over T3 in some specific roles. But again, if price was not an issue, do you think balancing T3Cs will stop them from obsoleting many other ships that are not as specilised as T2 cruiser classes? (i.e. will the new T3 balance reverse how most of the BCs became not so desirable?) TBH, I never bought this 'price is not a factor' argument. I have completely stopped flying T1 cruisers once I could fly HACs, Recons and Logistics. When T3s first came out and there was even less reason to look at T1 hulls and that remained the same even after all that tiercide stuff. Price of a ship does matter, and I feel it has been proved multiple times, through situations like T3Ds having great value for money and pirate faction ships being so cheap, that high performance ships available for very cheap prices will have great effect on the kind of ships you see regularly in space. so tl'dr; 1) What do people think about how easily available T3s should be? (in terms of supply, shortage/abundancy depending on demand, end product price, and their usefulness in terms of performance and role - all these things considered together) 2) in other but similar vein, how many T3s do you wish to see in space? end note: I'm just curious what you think strategic cruisers' 'place' should be in the whole game meta, not just from pound per pound comparison with another cruiser hull in terms of role and performance only. The efficiency and quality of the end product (i.e. desirability - demand) after the balance will play a role, maybe as much as any changes in supply side could. Sorry to butt into a ship balancing topic with this but the visions you have and the end product that T3s become will have very wide spread implications. If it cannot be answered I just wish to know that such things are being considered together, not just how many turrets or mid slots a ship should have. Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!
Mr Floydy Footloose Phoebe Freeport Republic 361	Posted - 2017.06.01 21:27:50 - [93] - Quote Kesthely wrote: Cut the base damage bonus to 5% on non drone boats. Then give a overheat bonus that increases the effectiveness of overheating by 15% - 20% and you'll have a system thats synergizes a lot better with the overall overheating state of the strategic cruisers, and will have a little less impact on Hac's I'd support this, overheating bonuses are a nice change!
Trespasser S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 77	Posted - 2017.06.01 23:38:16 - [94] - Quote one big issue that i see here is the tengu missile kinetic damage bonus still remains. I think this should just be a straight 5% damage, you have gotten rid of the specific damage bonus on many other caldari ships and this one should be no different.
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 2	Posted - 2017.06.02 06:38:49 - [95] - Quote Mr Floydy wrote: Kesthely wrote: Cut the base damage bonus to 5% on non drone boats. Then give a overheat bonus that increases the effectiveness of overheating by 15% - 20% and you'll have a system thats synergizes a lot better with the overall overheating state of the strategic cruisers, and will have a little less impact on Hac's I'd support this, overheating bonuses are a nice change! This can be good, but: 1) armor rep can be overheated rof 6 minutes, but 6 turrets + 1 hight slot - only 1min 33 sec. Owerheating is not so usefull here. 2) With base +10% bonus t3 have 150% normal damage and 172,5 (1501.15) owerheated with +5% base bonus and 20% Heat Benefits t3 have 125% base damage and 147 (1251.18) overheated for 1 minut and 33 sec. This nerf t3 dps greatly.
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 2	Posted - 2017.06.02 07:16:32 - [96] - Quote Proteus/Tengu/Loki with EWAR sub dont need extra cap/PWG, but Legion with EWAR sub should fit neuts which require extra PWG and cap. But now Legion cannot use any cap/pwg sub with EWAR sub...
Mr Floydy Footloose Phoebe Freeport Republic 361	Posted - 2017.06.02 08:04:54 - [97] - Quote Bromum Atom wrote: This can be good, but: 1) armor rep can be overheated rof 6 minutes, but 6 turrets + 1 hight slot - only 1min 33 sec. Owerheating is not so usefull here. 2) With base +10% bonus t3 have 150% normal damage and 172,5 (1501.15) owerheated with +5% base bonus and 20% Heat Benefits t3 have 125% base damage and 147 (1251.18) overheated for 1 minut and 33 sec. This nerf t3 dps greatly. I was thinking I like it more from an idea perspective, rather than necessarily agreeing with the numbers :) I'd hope that the overheated damage should this idea happen would be relatively on par with current overheated damage, and that standard damage would be lower. Bromum Atom wrote: Proteus/Tengu/Loki with EWAR sub dont need extra cap/PWG, but Legion with EWAR sub should fit neuts which require extra PWG and cap. But now Legion cannot use any cap/pwg sub with EWAR sub... Good point. Something that needs to be looked at!
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues Hookers N' Blow 35	Posted - 2017.06.02 13:07:18 - [98] - Quote Novor Drethan wrote: Noxisia Arkana wrote: Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete. And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing. It shouldn't be CCP's job to make sure the players have ships that do everything they want. It's the players who need to adapt. I would love if my Marauder had better resists or the ability to use a MJD when in Bastion, but CCP has rejected both those things. Why? Well, for balance. I don't believe a ship that can fit a covert cloak, interdiction nullification, and 6 bonused turrets/launchers is balanced. There's a reason Recon Ships don't have spectacular DPS and tank. There's a reason they don't have interdiction nullification. There's a reason Black Ops Battleships can't fit covert cloaks. All of that reasoning goes out the window with T3Cs though. It's as though every other ship in the game is balanced by one standard while T3Cs are balanced by another, and it certainly doesn't help that so many players support that. 1. T3Cs are Cruisers. They are not Battlecruisers. They are not Battleships. 2. Being T3 does not justify them being fundamentally broken in terms of balance. T3Ds were just rebalanced by CCP, and they seem to be in a good place. They are very much Destroyer hulls. They don't compete all that much with Cruisers, and they certainly don't compete with Battlecruisers. T3Cs should be very much the same, relative to their hull size. 3. Cost is not a proper balancing tool when used as an excuse to try and justify an unbalanced ship. We know this. Marauders are 10x as much as T1 Battleships, but CCP refuses to give them T2 resists -- they cost as much as Dreadnaughts, but don't perform anywhere near the same level. The same should be true of T3Cs. You shouldn't be paying all that extra isk for a brokenly powerful ship. You should be paying that isk for a ship that's versatile and can adapt to many different roles -- unlike T2 ships, which are limited to specific roles. This really all seems like common sense, but T3Cs have been so strong for so long that people simply aren't willing to admit that they need a much more extensive nerf than we're currently seeing. I think that this should be the goal. Good post, T3D's are in a good spot people are still using them all but none are really that oppressive.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3613	Posted - 2017.06.02 14:43:28 - [99] - Quote I curious as to why CCP feels that the Skill Point loss is still a valid mechanic, we have skill injectors and recently have mini-skill injectiors. It just seems to be redundant any more. On the topic of skills also, I assume that the lost subsystem skill will be refunded? If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 808	Posted - 2017.06.02 16:12:41 - [100] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: I curious as to why CCP feels that the Skill Point loss is still a valid mechanic, we have skill injectors and recently have mini-skill injectiors. It just seems to be redundant any more. On the topic of skills also, I assume that the lost subsystem skill will be refunded? Fozzie admited it's all about SP sinks and extractors market. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Novor Drethan Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2017.06.02 16:34:03 - [101] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: I curious as to why CCP feels that the Skill Point loss is still a valid mechanic, we have skill injectors and recently have mini-skill injectiors. It just seems to be redundant any more. On the topic of skills also, I assume that the lost subsystem skill will be refunded? Fozzie admited it's all about SP sinks and extractors market. SP sinks are really just isk and time sinks though, which already exist in getting another hull, set of subsystems, and modules. The reality is that they want T3Cs to continue standing out over T2 ships so that more and more people use them, more and more people lose SP, more and more people purchase injectors, and more and more people purchase extractors to sell said injectors. They're using gameplay mechanics as a way of making a profit instead of actually using them because they make sense. Why don't T3Ds have SP loss? They're T3 ships just the same as T3Cs. If it were truly a valid game mechanic, it'd apply to all T3 ships.
Kesthely Almost Dangerous Stranger Danger. 178	Posted - 2017.06.02 19:21:49 - [102] - Quote Bromum Atom wrote: Mr Floydy wrote: Kesthely wrote: Cut the base damage bonus to 5% on non drone boats. Then give a overheat bonus that increases the effectiveness of overheating by 15% - 20% and you'll have a system thats synergizes a lot better with the overall overheating state of the strategic cruisers, and will have a little less impact on Hac's I'd support this, overheating bonuses are a nice change! This can be good, but: 1) armor rep can be overheated rof 6 minutes, but 6 turrets + 1 hight slot - only 1min 33 sec. Owerheating is not so usefull here. 2) With base +10% bonus t3 have 150% normal damage and 172,5 (1501.15) owerheated with +5% base bonus and 20% Heat Benefits t3 have 125% base damage and 147 (1251.18) overheated for 1 minut and 33 sec. This nerf t3 dps greatly. With the right combinations and skills the proposed strategic cruisers can have -50% heat damage already wich will make the effectiveness of it a bit higher. Also i don't believe that "limiting" the burst high dps to 1 1/2 minutes is bad. Also with a 20% overheat bonus per level the figures would be 150 normal [172 overheated] vs 125 normal [162 overheated]
Advenat Bedala Facehoof Out of Sight. 192	Posted - 2017.06.03 00:14:40 - [103] - Quote Strait idea about T3C rig use. Allowing them to unfit rigs feels like exception from exception and this is bad. Rigs that cannot be unfit from T3C bad too So no rigs no troubles Just zero rig slots at T3C It will reduce amount of work that should be done for balancing (lower variations for ships with insane number of variations) will save from insane tank multiplication from rigs (more than 70%) will allow to make insane things like +2 low/mid slots with less danger will give T3C bit more feelings of different technology
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services WiNGSPAN Delivery Network 758	Posted - 2017.06.03 01:48:45 - [104] - Quote The crazy conspiracy theories about SP loss being maintained for infinite financial gain are just nuts. If CCP was that greedy for injector cash they would have given T3Ds SP loss. Nobody would have batted an eye. Anyway the SP loss is no longer a good balancing factor. Just remove it and increase base hull cost instead. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Kenbones Valkyrie Seventeenth Battalion Honorable Third Party 0	Posted - 2017.06.03 06:52:29 - [105] - Quote So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 47	Posted - 2017.06.03 11:59:55 - [106] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: The crazy conspiracy theories about SP loss being maintained for infinite financial gain are just nuts. If CCP was that greedy for injector cash they would have given T3Ds SP loss. well t3cs had sp loss as a 'balancing' mechanism people said it was dumb and made no sense then t3ds came out with no sp loss because it was dumb and made no sense then extractors came out and t3cs get rebalanced and suddenly sp loss isnt dumb and makes sense funny coincidence
Novor Drethan Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2017.06.03 12:14:59 - [107] - Quote Kenbones Valkyrie wrote: So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive. I'm not. I'm seeing some absolutely terrible ideas, like giving the RR + links subsystems bonuses for turrets/launchers. T3Cs are not meant to take on multiple roles at once. They are meant to switch between roles as needed. This is insane, people wanting their T3Cs to be able to do everything. They want the cloaking subsystem to also have great tank. They want the logi + links subsystems to also have good DPS. They also seem to want unique bonuses inherent to the hull -- a hull that's not meant to have a distinct role, but the ability to swap roles. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. All you guys want seemingly T3Cs to remain as oppressive as they are now, and you attempt to justify that with saying CCP would be removing "healthy playstyles" if they changed too much. Yeah, those playstyles are not healthy. Isn't the entire point of the T3C rebalance to address how oppressive they are, and how much they overshadow the roles of T2 ships? Certain playstyles need drawbacks. They need sacrifices. That's how all the T2 ships work. They give up something in order to do great at something else. T3C roles should be the same.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 808	Posted - 2017.06.03 12:19:37 - [108] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: The crazy conspiracy theories about SP loss being maintained for infinite financial gain are just nuts. If CCP was that greedy for injector cash they would have given T3Ds SP loss. Nobody would have batted an eye. Anyway the SP loss is no longer a good balancing factor. Just remove it and increase base hull cost instead. Sure conspiracy here you go with Fozzman thoughts about it. Quote: 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. Healthy market means more money for CCP. Why only T3C? Why not T3D or even interceptors to keep market healthy? "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Daichi Yamato Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass 3941	Posted - 2017.06.03 13:28:27 - [109] - Quote The logi/dps combo idea sounds like a spider tanking nightmare. Please no. Or lower the effective turrets to 4-5. I hope im not the only one whos worried they are comparing the damage a logi T3 can do with what a full on combat T3 can do. And for the love of god, remove rigs completely. Makes their adaptability more fluid and keeps their power in check. Especially now they have so many slots. Remove sp loss. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3616	Posted - 2017.06.03 13:42:40 - [110] - Quote Quote: [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. I just wonder do you feel that about 750M (approximate cost of a skill injector) is an appropriate cost for losing a T3 ship? If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Toobo Project Fruit House Solyaris Chtonium 435	Posted - 2017.06.03 13:47:33 - [111] - Quote TBH, putting in a game mechanic that brings financial gain obviously makes sense for any commercial company Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!
Novor Drethan Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 8	Posted - 2017.06.03 13:51:42 - [112] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Quote: [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. I just wonder do you feel that about 750M (approximate cost of a skill injector) is an appropriate cost for losing a T3 ship? Just to add, what Fozzie said is complete, and excuse my language, bullshit. The construction of T3Cs is already a unique process, and CCP is also thinking of adding "new faction-specific build components sourced from WH space" to that. They're unique enough without the SP loss. CCP just doesn't want to give it up because they know adding it to other hulls would result in massive blowback, so they're fighting the easier fight by keeping it on the hulls that already have it.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3616	Posted - 2017.06.03 13:52:32 - [113] - Quote Toobo wrote: TBH, putting in a game mechanic that brings financial gain obviously makes sense for any commercial company Then they could bring back clone costs, that removed a lot of SP from the game from players who forgot to upgrade there clones. The constantly increasing costs of an older clone also guided players to purchase more plex or grind more causing more instances for ships to be lost which in turn could also make it more desirable to purchase plex. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3989	Posted - 2017.06.03 15:56:11 - [114] - Quote Would be nice to see the passive tengue possible have less buffer when compared to the others but lower relative recharge time Ofc I'm also slightly bothered that ccp used "passive" to describe sub systems geared at buffer i know they don't play they're game by they could try to use terms that are less misleading BLOPS Hauler The 16.8km Bubble
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 226	Posted - 2017.06.03 17:23:10 - [115] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Would be nice to see the passive tengue possible have less buffer when compared to the others but lower relative recharge time Ofc I'm also slightly bothered that ccp used "passive" to describe sub systems geared at buffer i know they don't play they're game by they could try to use terms that are less misleading Passive tanked anything are typically just buffer tanked ships with regen modules in place of damage for lows/rigs. Active tanked ships rarely fit buffer as they are fitting reps in their place (occasionally 1 extender to save you from alpha). So I fail to see the problem. If a passive shield tank didn't fit buffer they would have crap all for peak regen, and their tank would be so thin a single alpha could quickly send them sub 30% (break your tank).
Kenbones Valkyrie Seventeenth Battalion Honorable Third Party 0	Posted - 2017.06.03 21:30:25 - [116] - Quote Novor Drethan wrote: Kenbones Valkyrie wrote: So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive. I'm not. I'm seeing some absolutely terrible ideas, like giving the RR + links subsystems bonuses for turrets/launchers. T3Cs are not meant to take on multiple roles at once. They are meant to switch between roles as needed. This is insane, people wanting their T3Cs to be able to do everything all at the same time. They want the cloaking subsystem to also have great tank. They want the logi + links subsystems to also have good DPS. They also seem to want unique bonuses inherent to the hull -- a hull that's not meant to have a distinct role, but the ability to swap roles. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. All you guys seemingly want T3Cs to remain as oppressive as they are now, and you attempt to justify that with saying CCP would be removing "healthy playstyles" if they changed too much. Yeah, those playstyles are not healthy. Isn't the entire point of the T3C rebalance to address how oppressive they are, and how much they overshadow the roles of T2 ships? Certain playstyles need drawbacks. They need sacrifices. That's how all the T2 ships work. They give up something in order to do great at something else. T3C roles should be the same. That's not what has been said at all. The discussion was for there to be some un-bonused turrets/launchers on the logi subsystem. Also with the resist nerf the effective tank on all the T3Cs will be reduced. At the end of the day, no matter how much the T3Cs are nerfed it wont fix how bad most the HACs are or how little the other T2 cruisers are because there are better T1/Pirate ships that fill those roles. On the other had there are some roles that only the T3Cs fill and if are nerfed to ineffectiveness then that style of game play will have been effectively removed from the game.
Cade Windstalker 1554	Posted - 2017.06.03 23:11:15 - [117] - Quote Novor Drethan wrote: Kenbones Valkyrie wrote: So far I'm seeing good things from the focus group and the discussed changes. That's not to say there are not some rough spots, the Proteus ewar sub slot layout at 1 low 3 mid should probably be 2 mid 2 low since in some configurations you can have as little as 4 low slots. For an armor tanked ship this feels too restrictive. I'm not. I'm seeing some absolutely terrible ideas, like giving the RR + links subsystems bonuses for turrets/launchers. T3Cs are not meant to take on multiple roles at once. They are meant to switch between roles as needed. This is insane, people wanting their T3Cs to be able to do everything all at the same time. They want the cloaking subsystem to also have great tank. They want the logi + links subsystems to also have good DPS. They also seem to want unique bonuses inherent to the hull -- a hull that's not meant to have a distinct role, but the ability to swap roles. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. All you guys seemingly want T3Cs to remain as oppressive as they are now, and you attempt to justify that with saying CCP would be removing "healthy playstyles" if they changed too much. Yeah, those playstyles are not healthy. Isn't the entire point of the T3C rebalance to address how oppressive they are, and how much they overshadow the roles of T2 ships? Certain playstyles need drawbacks. They need sacrifices. That's how all the T2 ships work. They give up something in order to do great at something else. T3C roles should be the same. T3Cs have always had an element of fitting multiple sub-roles under the primary one, and these changes very clearly continue that. If they wanted to hard-restrict T3Cs to one role at a time they'd have either reduced the number of subsystem slots further (something like Primary/Defensive/Propulation, with current Offensive+Utility rolled into Primary) or they'd have gone with the T3D's mode switching scheme. Nothing anywhere in this suggests that T3Cs are meant to swap roles on the fly in any significant capacity. If you go back and look at what CCP have said about T3Cs and T3 vs T2 the whole point of T3s is that you give up a little effect in exchange for versatility. If T3Cs can only fit for absolutely one thing at a time then they're directly competing with the various T2 hulls and since they're more expensive they're now either worthless or OP, which is bad.
Demica Diaz SE-1 419	Posted - 2017.06.03 23:32:30 - [118] - Quote Finally, cant wait to see new T3's it will be either fun or I uninstall the game. But Id like to say that I do not like rigs on T3. Too much hassle even if you could remove em without destroying. I would prefer T3s be completely rigless.
Blade Darth Room for Improvement Limited Expectations 212	Posted - 2017.06.04 02:53:54 - [119] - Quote Cut the drone bonus from the Legion (it's not gonna be a drone boat with 50mbit anyway) and shift it more towards missiles. 6 launcher, application bonus or something. Atm. its lazors + missiles and drones (sort of). Too much. Proteus, similar story. Secondary weapon thing, both blaster and drone part feel.... incomplete. Since the Tengu also can use blasters, go full drone on the Prot.... Actually drones could be the primary on Proteus. It's a gallente boat after all. And drones instead of missiles on the Legion as secondary, it would balance the primary/secondary theme for all hulls. At least for missiles and drones. As it is now 3 can use missiles (2.5 since Legion bonus doesn't match the others) and only 1 drones (1.5 counting legion) Omen Navy Issue Tutorial
Gustav Mannfred Summer of Mumuit 164	Posted - 2017.06.04 09:56:24 - [120] - Quote Any plans to allow T3 again to enter DED 3 and DED 4 sites? back the days this change happened, nothing changed, nowadays gilas and hacs are more popular than T3. T3 are cruisers and should be able to enther any site where cruisers can enter i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 808	Posted - 2017.06.04 10:20:01 - [121] - Quote Tengu has no bonus to RLML? "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 2	Posted - 2017.06.04 11:04:47 - [122] - Quote Now is't possible to fit combat probes on t3 in battle fit (by cost of 1 slot usually). With this update its not possible.
Alessienne Ellecon Solitude Rangers 128	Posted - 2017.06.04 11:29:11 - [123] - Quote "Team Five O" wrote: Dual tank bonuses for the Loki The minmaxers are going to love this. Isn't dual tanking supposed to be a huge no-no? sits back and waits for the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth "CONCORD are the space cops. If you attack someone in a high-security solar system, CONCORD will commit police brutality." - Encyclopedia Dramatica If EVE is a PvP game, then Anti-Ganking is emergent gameplay.
Lugh Crow-Slave 3989	Posted - 2017.06.04 11:51:19 - [124] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Would be nice to see the passive tengue possible have less buffer when compared to the others but lower relative recharge time Ofc I'm also slightly bothered that ccp used "passive" to describe sub systems geared at buffer i know they don't play they're game by they could try to use terms that are less misleading Passive tanked anything are typically just buffer tanked ships with regen modules in place of damage for lows/rigs. Active tanked ships rarely fit buffer as they are fitting reps in their place (occasionally 1 extender to save you from alpha). So I fail to see the problem. If a passive shield tank didn't fit buffer they would have crap all for peak regen, and their tank would be so thin a single alpha could quickly send them sub 30% (break your tank). Because shields very well can and do fit buffer differently than shields a buffer onyx is fit and used very differently than a passive onyx same with the chimera. A passive will have far higher peak recharge but much lower buffer. Onyx buffer 148-200kehp with 800-2kehp/s recharge vs a passive 80-130kehp with 3k-6kehp/s recharge. Not to mention armor simply can't passive tank. BLOPS Hauler The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave 3989	Posted - 2017.06.04 11:53:56 - [125] - Quote Alessienne Ellecon wrote: "Team Five O" wrote: Dual tank bonuses for the Loki The minmaxers are going to love this. Isn't dual tanking supposed to be a huge no-no? sits back and waits for the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth Duel tanking is not a no no. That is something told to newbros because 99% of the time that is the rule. This isn't a naff thing as by the time they know enough about the game to figure this out they understand why the few fits that did use it work. It's similar to how newbros were told every fit must have a dcu before they were rebalance BLOPS Hauler The 16.8km Bubble
Lugh Crow-Slave 3989	Posted - 2017.06.04 11:57:03 - [126] - Quote So the ecm bonus on the tengue my math is kinda crap when it comes to multiple bonuses and stacking penalties but my attempts show it may be a bit to strong. This would not be an issue if 100% jams were removed but worth how it is and the heat reduction i can see these locking down small gangs of t1 ships BLOPS Hauler The 16.8km Bubble
Sterling Blades Windstalker Security Corp United Neopian Federation 33	Posted - 2017.06.04 12:48:50 - [127] - Quote Having looked back over the Loki offensive bonuses, it makes me happy that I'll be able to fly a drone flight, even if an absolute minimal one, if they don't pull the drone bay from the current offensive system revisions. Overall, with the exception of the missile based secondary weapon subsystem revision on the loki actually making missile fits decently viable, the rest are mostly in line with current offensive loki configs that I've run. I also read the footnote at the far bottom of that google doc spreadsheet about most offensive systems across the board probably being too good, and already am feeling jitters about them likely pulling the small dronebays out of the loki revisions entirely. Hopefully it stays though. The little buggers are useful distractions and utility tools. The gods are out there. They watch us. They guide, they manipulate. We rally behind the ones we adore, and rain fire against those who rally behind the ones we hate. The question now is, to whom does your allegiance fall behind, dear Empyreans?
Scath Bererund SergalJerk Test Alliance Please Ignore 59	Posted - 2017.06.04 13:21:43 - [128] - Quote No hacking and scan probe bonus any more?
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 2	Posted - 2017.06.04 13:25:58 - [129] - Quote Scath Bererund wrote: No hacking and scan probe bonus any more? Only with covert-sub.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 48	Posted - 2017.06.04 13:59:13 - [130] - Quote Sterling Blades wrote: I also read the footnote at the far bottom of that google doc spreadsheet about most offensive systems across the board probably being too good yeah not sure why the footnote says that they dont really look that good to me well proteus is good but its gallente so its expected loki looks good but still projectiles tengu and legion look crap

Mr Floydy Footloose Phoebe Freeport Republic 362	Posted - 2017.06.05 10:51:49 - [131] - Quote Blade Darth wrote: Cut the drone bonus from the Legion (it's not gonna be a drone boat with 50mbit anyway) and shift it more towards missiles. 6 launcher, application bonus or something. Atm. its lazors + missiles and drones (sort of). Too much. I'm torn on this. Really comes down to some other stats to whether it's really usable. One one hand 50mbit is pretty rubbish on it's own, but that set of drones plus something like 500dps from missiles that's a whole lot of pain the ship could put out. Considering you can get 8 low slots on the Legion having 4 damage mods to boost both missile and drone dps is definitely achievable.
Geanos The Scope Gallente Federation 37	Posted - 2017.06.05 12:19:56 - [132] - Quote From the dev blog: "The current state of T3 Cruisers is unsustainable from a technical graphics perspective" You might have considered it, but anyway, here it goes: what if the T3's would be a single racial hull with hardpoints for each subsystem? And each subsystem would add some extra antennas, different nozzles for the engines etc., just like T2's have extra graphical assets vs T1's. This could open up skinning for T3's. Another (probably silly) idea worth exploring would to make the strategic cruisers be like a Gnosis, with a blanked of roles / slot layout and make each subsystem to behave like a specialized rig that add / removes bonuses and fitting slots / hardpoints. This could open up interesting possibilities, for example like not fitting a prop subsystem in order to get an extra slot somewhere. To make it easier for balance you could remove rig slots altogether.
Kesthely Almost Dangerous Stranger Danger. 178	Posted - 2017.06.05 14:09:25 - [133] - Quote I don't think you understand, probably the biggest limiting factor for the amount of modules and combinations is due because of the art department. They need to visual rework 48 combinations. This means that the arguments of "add another combination" is virtually undoable in the timeframe they want to release it. For game development and balance its also that they are balancing 48 ships at the same time. Wich is twice the amount of Unique ship bonus combinations than there are TII cruiser hulls. This combined with the unique versatility with Strategic cruisers might make this the most diffficult balance pass since they've decided to step away from tiercide. As a first draft, i'm reasonably content with the proposed changes. The dps total seems a bit high but i've posted previously an option about that already. Hopefully the'll have a working format to release in Juli, looking forward to it.
Geanos The Scope Gallente Federation 37	Posted - 2017.06.05 15:33:32 - [134] - Quote Humm, it seems that the graphical part needs a better explanation. As I see it, at the moment the T3 hull is just an empty placeholder where you fit different subsystems, each with his own model. So even if you reduce the number of subsystems you still have a lot of graphical combinations. This also means that we'll probably never get T3 skins. But if you replace that empty placeholder with an actual ship hull and make the subsystems change the look of some small elements like nozzles, antennas etc., the things would get easier for the art department. For example, one could save a lot of work if he would make the weapon subsystem be like a carbon fiber black strip on the hull and you only need to change the number of weapon hardpoints. Another example: it would be like a LEGO ship on which you don't need to change the whole back of the ship (which is a lot of pieces and work to fit everything), but instead you only change the pieces for engine nozzles. You could think at the T3 to be like an unfitted ship with hardpoints, but instead of placing turrets on those hardpoints you would place subsystems. You would end up with having to maintain only 4 hull models (which is easier to skin) and the small graphical elements that would be the subsystems.
zbaaca Republic Military Tax Avoiders 89	Posted - 2017.06.06 13:31:28 - [135] - Quote tengu 12 eff launchers vs loki 10 loki have exp vel 25% + rlml bonus while tengu plain stupid kinetic damage . insert falceplam here . maybe add instead kinetic some exp rad bonus ? with current rof bonus it' will have about 9.6 launcers but superior application (well maybe crank up rof up to 10 effective) . yet i still doubt that it will massacre small target like loki will do with rlml bonuses , but will make hml valiable again Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn GÖíGÖíGÖí
Catherine Laartii State Protectorate Caldari State 1	Posted - 2017.06.06 15:59:34 - [136] - Quote In regards to discussions about tengu/loki missile subs, why not have the tengu focus more on application, and the loki for raw damage? Ex: Tengu gets 10-15% damage per level, 5% bonus to missile explo radius, and 10% bonus to missile velocity Loki gets 7.5% bonus to launcher firing rate and 5% bonus to explosive damage per level, but only to HAMs/heavies. The paper dps on the loki is higher, but applies worse than the tengu. Application bonuses for weapons are more easily compensated for on a loki since generally it has more lowslots available, and its shield resist profile is more forgiving. Or, if you are running an armor fit, running missile guidance enhancers and/or tracking enhancers. In either case, setting up missile offensive bonuses like that between the two would go well with each of the ships' bonuses and layouts. I could see the full armor missile loki seeing good use in conjunction with the webs, and the missile tengu being spectacularly good with heavy missiles.
Catherine Laartii State Protectorate Caldari State 1	Posted - 2017.06.06 16:02:57 - [137] - Quote Also, I think the free rig swapping ability should be compensated for with slashing calibration size by 50-100 points.
zbaaca Republic Military Tax Avoiders 89	Posted - 2017.06.06 16:19:55 - [138] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: In regards to discussions about tengu/loki missile subs, why not have the tengu focus more on application, and the loki for raw damage? Ex: Tengu gets 10-15% damage per level, 5% bonus to missile explo radius, and 10% bonus to missile velocity Loki gets 7.5% bonus to launcher firing rate and 5% bonus to explosive damage per level, but only to HAMs/heavies. The paper dps on the loki is higher, but applies worse than the tengu. Application bonuses for weapons are more easily compensated for on a loki since generally it has more lowslots available, and its shield resist profile is more forgiving. Or, if you are running an armor fit, running missile guidance enhancers and/or tracking enhancers. In either case, setting up missile offensive bonuses like that between the two would go well with each of the ships' bonuses and layouts. I could see the full armor missile loki seeing good use in conjunction with the webs, and the missile tengu being spectacularly good with heavy missiles. in '12 ccp castrated HML by about 10% of dmg (5% they returned lol) and 12% exp rad , so about 25% of applied damage . since then hml become wastly unpopular so 25% of exp rad might become too op . i'd start by about 3% exp + 7.5% rof AND 1% to hml\ham damage thus granting 10 eff launchers and kinda old application Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn GÖíGÖíGÖí
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 3	Posted - 2017.06.06 17:04:09 - [139] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Also, I think the free rig swapping ability should be compensated for with slashing calibration size by 50-100 points. Rig swapping is useless!
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 832	Posted - 2017.06.06 17:15:53 - [140] - Quote Something that a lot of people may not have noticed that i feel needs to be addressed (if it hasnt already). Cargo space, loki especially had terrible cargo space (sub 300m3). If you want a decent missile loki, it needs to have enough cargo space for its ammo, paste, boosters as needed. Lets make sure T3Cs get at least equivalent cargo as t3ds (for whatever dumb reason t3ds got so much cargo for a dessie). Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS Make the Muninn great again!

JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 55	Posted - 2017.06.06 17:53:06 - [141] - Quote zbaaca wrote: tengu 12 eff launchers vs loki 10 loki have exp vel 25% + rlml bonus while tengu plain stupid kinetic damage . insert falceplam here . maybe add instead kinetic some exp rad bonus ? with current rof bonus it' will have about 9.6 launcers but superior application (well maybe crank up rof up to 10 effective) . yet i still doubt that it will massacre small target like loki will do with rlml bonuses , but will make hml valiable again not to mention loki can choose tank style so gets a lot more options to go with those missiles
zbaaca Republic Military Tax Avoiders 90	Posted - 2017.06.06 17:58:11 - [142] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: not to mention loki can choose tank style so gets a lot more options to go with those missiles yep . that point i overlooked . in armor tank insane , rlml with application with bonuses + web\painter\track comp = looks like instapopping small ships Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn GÖíGÖíGÖí
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 1201	Posted - 2017.06.06 18:08:30 - [143] - Quote Still waiting for final stats on nerfs / modification like ehp / resist / speed and sig rad to be sure but right now i feel(not know) that 5L loki armor tank(web sub) is too much of a nerf to it with all above nerfs it should continue to have 6L slots and be in the line. I really don't want to see it go down like that just so one role it does extremely good atm all other possible roles for armor loki are ignored PVE and PVP please CCP reconsider WHY are you doing this and for WHO and should that be a reason to balance a ship? I would like to see high slot from missile sub go down to low so armor loki get it 6L slot back or at least high get swapped to mid or something to use extra sensor boosters to be harder to damp.... All in all i dont think that one borderline oppressing and certainly annoying setup(that don't even use guns thus extra tank / dual prop) web loki should nerf ALL armor side of loki like that, that is used for both pve and pvp and i think just nerfs to t3 in general with achieve enough by it self. They are counters out there and with reduction in overall tank ,mobility and being able to get hit easier...and since this balancing passes don't happen more than decade at a time...... Can anyone on CCP comment on this to the rest of us? You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear Because >>I is too hard
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18945	Posted - 2017.06.07 10:48:25 - [144] - Quote Few things in my book that need addressing. Powergrid is way too high for a cruiser, for example. Proteus 1820 Thorax 1025 Exequror Navy Isuue 1038 Deimos 1313 Vigilant 1313 Talos 1375 Astarte 1688 A lot of the issues around T3C come from this massive powergrid problem, its a big part of how they can get such huge EHP numbers while still sporting the firepower and utility. Base HP is another issue that helps them get so much better EHP results than other cruisers. Again looking at the bog standard proteus fleet fit (augmented plating). Proteus: Shield 6100 Armour 13700 Hull 3460 Deimos: Shield 2930 Armour 5560 Hull 4760 Vigilant Shield 3750 Armour 4630 Hull 4900 Talos Shield 3020 Armour 3500 Hull 4030 Astarte Shield 8290 Armour 13000 Hull 9330 Again it cannot be right that the proteus is getting more than twice the base armour of cruisers and is even edging the command ships. It should be brought into line with the rest of the cruisers. Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Getting through a blockade should involve some skill on the pilots behalf. Fourth, SP loss should go. Its just going to be used to justify the ships being overpowered compared to other cruisers, it disproportionately impacts younger players as older players such as myself don't have much to train for so can afford a few days training the skill again or can afford to simply throw isk at getting those skills back again. Its fairly rare to lose one. Lastly I would look at reducing the size of the sub systems from 40 m3 down to 10 m3 and bumping up the cargo hold to 450 m3. That should give you the room needed for refits, ammo, charges and such so that they can be the highly adaptable cruisers you can adapt on the fly.
zbaaca Republic Military Tax Avoiders 90	Posted - 2017.06.07 11:51:19 - [145] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Few things in my book that need addressing.. so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn GÖíGÖíGÖí
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18946	Posted - 2017.06.07 12:12:27 - [146] - Quote zbaaca wrote: baltec1 wrote: Few things in my book that need addressing.. so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field If you want battleship EHP bring a battleship.
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 3	Posted - 2017.06.07 12:20:59 - [147] - Quote baltec1 wrote: zbaaca wrote: baltec1 wrote: Few things in my book that need addressing.. so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field If you want battleship EHP bring a battleship. T2 command ships (with passive tank bonus) usually have more EHP then t3. -íomparison passive proteus with Astarte (with armor rep bonus) is not valid. Check EHP of Absolution or Damnation.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3373	Posted - 2017.06.07 13:17:06 - [148] - Quote baltec1 wrote: zbaaca wrote: baltec1 wrote: Few things in my book that need addressing.. so you want to bring down ehp of t3 to t2 , meaning wh dudes will suffer , meaning to increasing cost , meaning basically removal of t3 from the field If you want battleship EHP bring a battleship. Of if it's really needed, they could always re balance the rats in the sites. It's not like it's not like their currents stats are something that can't be modified at all...
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 812	Posted - 2017.06.07 13:57:49 - [149] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Please stop commenting about exploration or any PvE stuff. You have no idea how to catch explorers (hint: it's not on the gate, Rise even gave you d-scan immune ships for that). Covops and nullification will be hard nerfed I presume to the point single handed gate camp will have the chance to catch it. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3206	Posted - 2017.06.07 14:01:10 - [150] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Getting through a blockade should involve some skill on the pilots behalf. Lastly I would look at reducing the size of the sub systems from 40 m3 down to 10 m3 and bumping up the cargo hold to 450 m3. That should give you the room needed for refits, ammo, charges and such so that they can be the highly adaptable cruisers you can adapt on the fly. I pretty well agree with all of your other points, but let me address these. I am okay with the notion of CovOps and nullification being on the same hull at the same time, but I feel like making that choice should carry considerably steeper penalties than it does now, or will according to the WIP sheet. Maybe combine your two ideas: make most subsystems smaller, but make the nullification and/or CovOps subsystems bigger. A lot bigger. That way pilots will have a harder time refitting into, or out of, a nullified CovOps configuration in space. Force pilots to stick to their less-capable fit if they want the benefits of nullified CovOps. Without knowing the final stats yet, I'd also consider further reducing the durability and/or mobility of a nullified CovOps fit. Make them more like bombers: slow, fat, glass cannons. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs

Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3616	Posted - 2017.06.07 14:42:20 - [151] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: baltec1 wrote: Third, for me, is that cov ops cloaks and nullification on any ship should not be allowed. on a cruiser sized hull it just means it is impossible to stop such a ship. People will try to push keeping it because it "impacts exploration" but quite frankly I don't see why people running around making isk via probing should be given this tool to simply ignore PvP. Getting through a blockade should involve some skill on the pilots behalf. Lastly I would look at reducing the size of the sub systems from 40 m3 down to 10 m3 and bumping up the cargo hold to 450 m3. That should give you the room needed for refits, ammo, charges and such so that they can be the highly adaptable cruisers you can adapt on the fly. I pretty well agree with all of your other points, but let me address these. I am okay with the notion of CovOps and nullification being on the same hull at the same time, but I feel like making that choice should carry considerably steeper penalties than it does now, or will according to the WIP sheet. Maybe combine your two ideas: make most subsystems smaller, but make the nullification and/or CovOps subsystems bigger. A lot bigger. That way pilots will have a harder time refitting into, or out of, a nullified CovOps configuration in space. Force pilots to stick to their less-capable fit if they want the benefits of nullified CovOps. Without knowing the final stats yet, I'd also consider further reducing the durability and/or mobility of a nullified CovOps fit. Make them more like bombers: slow, fat, glass cannons. In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp. In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons. As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3207	Posted - 2017.06.07 15:30:36 - [152] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp. In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons. As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site. I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in. Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3616	Posted - 2017.06.07 16:13:09 - [153] - Quote I know CCP is in process of full stats as well as overhauling how subsystems affect the hull, I'm an anxiously awaiting V2 of the changes. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 812	Posted - 2017.06.07 20:35:00 - [154] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp. In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons. As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site. I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in. Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category. Can you explain why subsystem that helps with traveling isn't require for exploration(nullified one)? Activity strongly connected with traveling at it's very core? By your logic covert cloak is not required either, I'm not using it when exploring hisec combat sites. I fit my explo vessels accordingly to the threats. No cloak - hisec, cloak - lowsec, cloak+nullifing - null. Mobile bubbles are still a thing, just switched to T2 ones. On the other hand someone using covert cloak is not necessary an explorer. Yet they will end with bullshit tank because covert+nullified combo will be nerfed to the unusable level. So better to use Stratios over overpriced, SP loss, "versatile" T3C. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18948	Posted - 2017.06.07 21:31:40 - [155] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Bronson Hughes wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: In the current iteration of the subsystems the nullified sub has one less slot, and the covert ops sub has less raw hp. In order to maintain exploration viability they cannot be glass cannons. As Jeremiah stated, the best way to catch an explorer is in the site. I have no issue with non-nullified CovOps fits being tanky enough for exploration sites and I think that the active tank bonus on the current round of CovOps subsystems suits this role well. However, nullified CovOps isn't a requirement for exploration, only CovOps is, and it's this specific combination that I think needs to be reigned in. Keep in mind that if CCP is in the process of re-working all of the subsystems, there's nothing stopping them from applying EHP penalties to the nullification subsystem even though it's not in the Defense category. Can you explain why subsystem that helps with traveling isn't require for exploration(nullified one)? Activity strongly connected with traveling at it's very core? By your logic covert cloak is not required either, I'm not using it when exploring hisec combat sites. I fit my explo vessels accordingly to the threats. No cloak - hisec, cloak - lowsec, cloak+nullifing - null. Mobile bubbles are still a thing, just switched to T2 ones. On the other hand someone using covert cloak is not necessary an explorer. Yet they will end with bullshit tank because covert+nullified combo will be nerfed to the unusable level. So better to use Stratios over overpriced, SP loss, "versatile" T3C. Cov ops cloaks are very powerful on their own. Nullification is not required for exploration as can be seen with all of the other cov ops ships out there. The problem with nullification and cov ops being on the same ship is that it effectively means you can ignore any defence in your way. This not only means explorers can opt out of pvp but also means that people can and do use them to transport high value goods, offensive cyno's, hunt ratters, run escalations safe in the knowledge that they will not be caught while travelling unlike every other ship out there (including the other cov ops). It is simply too powerful a combo. The pilgrim is never going to be much of an option so long as the legion has the power to ignore defences.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3617	Posted - 2017.06.08 01:35:09 - [156] - Quote With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Rawketsled Generic Corp Name 523	Posted - 2017.06.08 03:15:42 - [157] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp. Is that objectively a bad thing?
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3618	Posted - 2017.06.08 03:25:52 - [158] - Quote Rawketsled wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp. Is that objectively a bad thing? Beyond making the subsystem relatively useless, no. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Amarisen Gream Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 341	Posted - 2017.06.08 03:42:53 - [159] - Quote Something crazy that I think would be great, make T3C T3BC instead. It seems most of their numbers fall in line with BCs more than Cruisers anyway. Yeah it would be a crazy SP train to work out, but I think they would fit in better if they had the base stats inline with BCs vs cruisers. "The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1 #NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 232	Posted - 2017.06.08 03:53:16 - [160] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: That kinda defeats part of the reason they are going down to 4 sets of 3 subs, which is to have better choices and remove useless combinations. Didn't realize cloak and nullification was a useless combination. Nullification was given to interceptors to make them unique. So they could fulfill the role of catching and holding down targets unimpeded by non-targeted effects (bubbles) but be horribly susceptible to damage as a trade off. What purpose does it serve on a T3C other than to make recons obsolete? What has been the trade off for this ability until now? Right, nothing. You had an nigh uncatchable cruiser with a BB level tank that could cloak until now. Now those willing to put up an active defense will have the chance to catch these players. God forbid hotdroppers get a fight they weren't expecting... Maybe they could use this to their advantage and drop on the camp itself? If players do not set up a defense or are not set up properly to catch a T3C then nothing changes and you get your dank kills regardless. Remember, they still need to get the decloak. All they are doing here is giving defenders a chance to defend and force a fight on them. Something which has been lacking for a while now with all the insta-warp nano crap that has become the meta. Edit: fixed a broken quote

Anemone221 221st Support group 10	Posted - 2017.06.08 05:41:48 - [161] - Quote I'm glad that the remote rep blop t3c is still a thing, never got to run a fleet with them but I would think it could be hilarious for small group to gank random instance runners and still be able to tank the site using them. In my opinion I would change the 550% falloff bonus to a 20 % increase in optimal and falloff (1/3 of basilisk).
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 812	Posted - 2017.06.08 05:45:43 - [162] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Cov ops cloaks are very powerful on their own. Nullification is not required for exploration as can be seen with all of the other cov ops ships out there. The problem with nullification and cov ops being on the same ship is that it effectively means you can ignore any defence in your way. God, where to start? Neither covert cloak nor nullification is required for exploration. Those subsystems are not needed to do exploration sites. It is required for travel. Some content will be harder and will propablly need to change configuration in order to be done, like ghost sites or sleeper caches, and it is a good thing. Covert cloak is remedy for insta locking ships, nullification for non targeted interdiction, with current drawbacks that configuration will not be like walk in the park as currently is. T3C are and will be special (like overpriced, and SP loss) that's why they get special abilities. baltec1 wrote: This not only means explorers can opt out of pvp but also means that people can and do use them to transport high value goods, offensive cyno's, hunt ratters, run escalations safe in the knowledge that they will not be caught while travelling unlike every other ship out there (including the other cov ops). Transport good? Less safe after nerf. Offensive cynos? Because nullified ceptors can't carry them...Hunt ratters? You serious? Obscene amount of ISK in null, carrier ratting in dead end pipes hidden behind mobile bubbles. Make "dirty gate" at pipe starting system and your covert only cyno carrier is useless. Run escalation safe? Yeah, they don't be caught while traveling but they will be on site. This is valid tactics in low and just because F1 monkeys in null don't know how to use combat probes and lachesis doesn't mean those hulls will be super safe. baltec1 wrote: It is simply too powerful a combo. The pilgrim is never going to be much of an option so long as the legion has the power to ignore defences. Just because we nerf proteus beyond the deimos doesn't mean the deimos will start to be usefull after. Covert+nullifing combo has very harsh drawbacks so I don't think recons will be overshadowed because T3Cs can nullifiy bubbles. I have so concerns about cynos, if covert+nullified combo is too strong: 1) should nullified interdiction hull carry them? (both T3C and ceptors) 2) why not covert hulls only? 3) covert cyno reserved to recons only? "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18956	Posted - 2017.06.08 09:09:45 - [163] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp. Sig increase isn't going to do much for catching them. You can cloak a titan before you can lock it due to the way sever ticks work so a bigger sig isn't going to do much. Question remains on the align time, in my experience you will be looking at something like battlescruiser to battleship speed, say 8 to 9 seconds to make catching it a realistic option.
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 3	Posted - 2017.06.08 09:14:42 - [164] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp. Sig increase isn't going to do much for catching them. You can cloak a titan before you can lock it due to the way sever ticks work so a bigger sig isn't going to do much. Question remains on the align time, in my experience you will be looking at something like battlescruiser to battleship speed, say 8 to 9 seconds to make catching it a realistic option. Why gate campers should be boosted?
Rawketsled Generic Corp Name 524	Posted - 2017.06.08 10:47:38 - [165] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Rawketsled wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp. Is that objectively a bad thing? Beyond making the subsystem relatively useless. That kinda defeats part of the reason they are going down to 4 sets of 3 subs, which is to have better choices and remove useless combinations. Which subsystem? Each one seems pretty useful... just not in that exact situation you want them for.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18956	Posted - 2017.06.08 12:18:34 - [166] - Quote Bromum Atom wrote: Why gate campers should be boosted? Ususally they dont want to pvp, they can only camp the gate and run when you start pew-pew with them. Why should you be able to ignore them?
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3619	Posted - 2017.06.08 12:33:40 - [167] - Quote Rawketsled wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Rawketsled wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: With the expected nerfs to align time and sig resolution, nullification without cloak is probably a 100% chance of getting caught at a bubble camp. Is that objectively a bad thing? Beyond making the subsystem relatively useless. That kinda defeats part of the reason they are going down to 4 sets of 3 subs, which is to have better choices and remove useless combinations. Which subsystem? Each one seems pretty useful... just not in that exact situation you want them for. Individually they are all useful but certain combinations quickly turn into hot garbage. There are 1024 combinations for each hull, how many have you used? Personally I use(d) about 20. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 3	Posted - 2017.06.08 13:08:41 - [168] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Bromum Atom wrote: Why gate campers should be boosted? Ususally they dont want to pvp, they can only camp the gate and run when you start pew-pew with them. Why should you be able to ignore them? Why they should get free killmail? Or why I should logoff at camped system? Why carriers ratting aligned and ignore pvp when I going to catch them? What is easy: catch carrier when it warp to new rat-site (there is no othe way to catch it if carrier pilot doesn't sleep) or catch covert-nullifier t3 when it pass through gate?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18956	Posted - 2017.06.08 13:37:56 - [169] - Quote Bromum Atom wrote: Why they should get free killmail? Its only free if you let them win. Bromum Atom wrote: Or why I should logoff at camped system? You don't, you have a cov ops cloak, use it. Bromum Atom wrote: Why carriers ratting aligned and ignore pvp when I going to catch them? What is easy: catch carrier when it warp to new rat-site (there is no othe way to catch it if carrier pilot doesn't sleep) or catch covert-nullifier t3 when it pass through gate? So you should be able to just ignore someones defences? Sounds like you wan't an I win button.
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 3	Posted - 2017.06.08 13:55:56 - [170] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So you should be able to just ignore someones defences? Sounds like you wan't an I win button. I told that. Dont know what you hear. You want camp gate killing t3 with you "win" button, but carriels still should be uncatchable? Quote: You don't, you have a cov ops cloak, use it. I have cov ops cloak + nullifier. Why t3 should be nerfed, but carriers not? Quote: Its only free if you let them win. I dont let them, I will refit and search for pvp at other places. Easy.

Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3377	Posted - 2017.06.08 14:40:11 - [171] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: T3C are and will be special (like overpriced, and SP loss) that's why they get special abilities. They aren't that expensive if you consider what you get out of them.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18956	Posted - 2017.06.08 14:54:02 - [172] - Quote Bromum Atom wrote: baltec1 wrote: So you should be able to just ignore someones defences? Sounds like you wan't an I win button. I told that. Dont know what you hear. You want camp gate killing t3 with you "win" button, but carriels still should be uncatchable? Quote: You don't, you have a cov ops cloak, use it. I have cov ops cloak + nullifier. Why t3 should be nerfed, but carriers not? Null+covert is just small nice bonus for such expensive t3 ship. Quote: Its only free if you let them win. I dont let them, I will refit and search for pvp at other places. Easy. You seem to have an obsession with AFK carriers, if you want them nerfed then ask for it somewhere else. This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18956	Posted - 2017.06.08 14:54:50 - [173] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: T3C are and will be special (like overpriced, and SP loss) that's why they get special abilities. They aren't that expensive if you consider what you get out of them. See this is why I want SP loss to go, people just use it as an excuse to make them overpowered.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 68	Posted - 2017.06.08 15:08:42 - [174] - Quote baltec1 wrote: This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp why shouldn't a t3c be able to when its specifically fitted to avoid it
April rabbit Mosquito Squadron The-Culture 17	Posted - 2017.06.08 15:59:15 - [175] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp Which one in particular?
zbaaca Republic Military Tax Avoiders 90	Posted - 2017.06.08 16:16:46 - [176] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: [quote=baltec1] other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp why shouldn't a t3c be able to when its specifically fitted to avoid it well anyway if the gate camp is decent there si no reason not to catch a t3c all you need is a sebo dram to decloak and point shhh . dont use secret language of logic Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn GÖíGÖíGÖí
zbaaca Republic Military Tax Avoiders 90	Posted - 2017.06.08 16:19:35 - [177] - Quote April rabbit wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp Which one in particular? jump freights . ceptors to ignore 95% of camps . bombers to choose when and where they want do die . blops that jumps , curse and friends to choose engagements . etc . i guess you get the idea Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn GÖíGÖíGÖí
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 3	Posted - 2017.06.08 16:32:19 - [178] - Quote baltec1 wrote: See this is why I want SP loss to go, people just use it as an excuse to make them overpowered. SP is just ISK. By this logic: people just use hude price of Supercarriers as an excuse to make them overpowered.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 70	Posted - 2017.06.08 16:32:52 - [179] - Quote zbaaca wrote: April rabbit wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: This does not mean however that T3C should be able to ignore PvP. other ships are specifically designed for ignoring pvp Which one in particular? jump freights . ceptors to ignore 95% of camps . bombers to choose when and where they want do die . blops that jumps , curse and friends to choose engagements . etc . i guess you get the idea yeah all of those and a few others the yacht the little mining frigs etc after these changes t3cs will be easier to catch they get agility nerf and nulli sub gets agility penalty
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 64	Posted - 2017.06.08 22:46:17 - [180] - Quote Alessienne Ellecon wrote: "Team Five O" wrote: Dual tank bonuses for the Loki The minmaxers are going to love this. Isn't dual tanking supposed to be a huge no-no? sits back and waits for the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth This is my main problem with Minmatar in general. The rule - as much as I understand - supposed be that specialization is always better than flexibility/compensation... call it what you want. The other factions picked a defense bonus for their ships: Amarr has passive armor with high resistance, Gallente has active armor with rep bonus, Caldari has passive shield with high resistance. So by logic, Minmatar should have active shield with booster bonus, and ONLY that. But Minmatar decided to be a mess by using armor and shield systems randomly, which brings up my problem: if Minmatar isn't specialized in any one defense, then shouldn't it have significantly weaker tank than the other 3 factions? And this brings up an even bigger problem with the Loki: surprise tank. The fact that you don't know what kind of tank it has, the Loki should have a huge advantage over the other 3 ships. However, it's still not specialized, so the chance to be tanked against the opponent's weapons should be the main defense. This means that if the opponent failed to guess the tank then the Loki should probably win, even if it's tank isn't specialized, and therefor weaker. But if the opponent guessed the tank then the Loki shouldn't have a chance. Other personal opinions about the new subsystems: - still no weapon disruption, sensor dampening and target painting. Are you suggesting that only the ECM wort anything? I would make a sensor/e-war core system with these 4 - based on the previous, another core system would be the cap warfare (Amarr), warp disruption (Gallente), web (Minmatar) and __________ (Caldari). This is another interesting thing, only 3 factions seem to have a unique engineering or propulsion based tactic. In this case Caldari is way behind the other 3 factions. - cloak and scanning in the same subsystem? Sure they are often used together, but not only used together. I would make the scanning/exploration the third core system, separated from the cloak. This way you could make a well tanked explorer/hunter without a cloak, which sometimes could be more useful. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 813	Posted - 2017.06.09 05:59:29 - [181] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: T3C are and will be special (like overpriced, and SP loss) that's why they get special abilities. They aren't that expensive if you consider what you get out of them. Oh but they will be soon. Honestly I didn't know they are so dirt cheap right now. I bought mine 150 for hull, 50 mil for subs. baltec1 wrote: See this is why I want SP loss to go, people just use it as an excuse to make them overpowered. but everybody want to see SP loss go, no matter if they want the hulls overpowered or not. The idea of delaying high skill usage of them sailed away with SP injectors. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Blazemonger Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 7	Posted - 2017.06.09 08:42:53 - [182] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: God, where to start? Neither covert cloak nor nullification is required for exploration. The reason for choosing aT3C is that it offers the option. If I am forced to refit in space I am at a considerable disadvantage as passing through a gate camp, even when cloaked and nullified, I am know to be flying a Tengu. Bring out the combat probes and locate me while refitting.. BLAP.. So yes, there is good reason for needing/using cloak/nullification in an exploration fit. By your reasoning, fitting cloak and Nullification should prevent any other role, including hunter/scout/cyno, and require an in system refit for everything. While the discussion and comments here are somewhat removing my fear of losing the ability to run the sites I do to make my income in game I am still not convinced this will work out for us explorers. The fact that using cloak directly affect my ability to tank is a main concern for me.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18963	Posted - 2017.06.09 09:50:05 - [183] - Quote zbaaca wrote: jump freights . Probably a fair argument, citadels have made getting them around virtually risk free. zbaaca wrote: ceptors to ignore 95% of camps . To do so they have to be incredibly fragile which balances it out. zbaaca wrote: bombers to choose when and where they want do die . As a bomber pilot this isn't true. Getting through a gatecamp is not risk free. zbaaca wrote: blops that jumps , curse and friends to choose engagements . etc . Way more vulnerable when using a gate though, T3C can also be bridged.
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 4	Posted - 2017.06.09 10:12:42 - [184] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Supercarriers have been nerfed several times in the past. Carriers ans supercarriers war greatly boosted during last year. This update with increased sig and mass of t3 and next increasement cost of pirate BS will boost carriers to. And now you told about t3 should be nerfed greatly. baltec1 wrote: Supercarriers have been nerfed several times in the past. The logic is sound, SP loss in today's EVE doesn't make much sense as older players either don't care about retraining the skills for a few days or can simply toss isk at the problem. I pay 1bil ISK every time I lost t3. Its not enough addition price for t3 cruser? Players should feel real pain when lost it?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18963	Posted - 2017.06.09 10:39:46 - [185] - Quote Bromum Atom wrote: Carriers ans supercarriers war greatly boosted during last year. This update with increased sig and mass of t3 and next increasement cost of pirate BS will boost carriers to. And now you told about t3 should be nerfed greatly. Fighter nerf incoming. Super and carriers just got nerfed. Bromum Atom wrote: I pay 1bil ISK every time I lost t3. Its not enough addition price for t3 cruser? Players should feel real pain when lost it? Depending on where T3C end up in terms of balance with the other cruisers a sound argument can be made to reduce the isk cost.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 65	Posted - 2017.06.09 12:55:31 - [186] - Quote Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here. Rare, pirate faction subsystems. One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only. Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3378	Posted - 2017.06.09 13:01:54 - [187] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here. Rare, pirate faction subsystems. One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only. Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus. It'[s already a clusterfuck to balance with locked racial subs. Adding more is an option only if you want an bigger mess.
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services WiNGSPAN Delivery Network 759	Posted - 2017.06.09 13:36:40 - [188] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here. Rare, pirate faction subsystems. One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only. Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus. That sounds both really fun and HILARIOUSLY BROKEN hahaha You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3620	Posted - 2017.06.09 14:58:40 - [189] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here. Rare, pirate faction subsystems. One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only. Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus. That sounds both really fun and HILARIOUSLY BROKEN hahaha It sounds like they heading in a direction where the subsystems have a lesser effect on the hull than in the past, where they simply modify the base stats rather than each subsystem adding specific stats. If this is truly how they are going to handle them, then pirate faction subs are absolutely possible without too many balance issues. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Eustise Mass Collapse It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake 9	Posted - 2017.06.09 16:42:50 - [190] - Quote Stitch Kaneland wrote: Something that a lot of people may not have noticed that i feel needs to be addressed (if it hasnt already). Cargo space, loki especially had terrible cargo space (sub 300m3). If you want a decent missile loki, it needs to have enough cargo space for its ammo, paste, boosters as needed. Lets make sure T3Cs get at least equivalent cargo as t3ds (for whatever dumb reason t3ds got so much cargo for a dessie). That's definitely a sore point for both PvE and PvP and one which i'll push forward to get more of, i'm hoping 100m3 extra roughly for all hulls. Especially since cloaking moved to defensive, even if we /were/ to switch, it'd be nice to throw the 100m3 cloak in the hold instead of being forced to leave a depo down or bookmark a can.

Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 65	Posted - 2017.06.09 19:40:40 - [191] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here. Rare, pirate faction subsystems. One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only. Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus. That sounds both really fun and HILARIOUSLY BROKEN hahaha You would put Mordu's subsystem with warp scramble range bonus on your Tengu, and you would love it. You know this too. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 18	Posted - 2017.06.09 19:44:07 - [192] - Quote Cargo space will certainly be an issue as in many case we will have to carry multiple mods and subs here. Also a major worry and concern still is the sugestion for base resists to be reduced to T3D levels.. I see no logic in this and it will impact explorers greatly as they will _need_ these resists and as it stands will not be able to buff them without losing the cloak. What can be the reasoning for a cruiser to have the same resists as it's 'counterpart' Destroyer.. It would seem logical it is an improvement over it's smaller brother.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 127	Posted - 2017.06.09 23:25:43 - [193] - Quote Cargo has always been an issue with T3's, with needing to carry more equipment, a depot, and sufficient ammo, these should all be boosted to the 500-700m3 range. Alternately giving them a deployed mode that simulates the depot and a 300m3 or so module/ammo bay would also work. Is the highsec site ban going to be lifted finally? I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay. on the fence about unbonused weapons on the logi subs but could be interesting.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 65	Posted - 2017.06.10 09:48:21 - [194] - Quote One more thing I would like to leave here: at the end of October last year I made this thread about how I think the T3Cs could be redone. The conversation didn't go far and the thread was locked due to inactivity, most likely because the idea is a huge wall of text. The reasons I bring it up again is because: - it has become relevant - some of my ideas are in the current concept, like removing the cloak from the offensive subsystems and putting the logi and command modules there Maybe now that it's actually happening, people will take a few minutes to at least read it, even if it's really long. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3620	Posted - 2017.06.10 13:09:56 - [195] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: One more thing I would like to leave here: at the end of October last year I made this thread about how I think the T3Cs could be redone. The conversation didn't go far and the thread was locked due to inactivity, most likely because the idea is a huge wall of text. The reasons I bring it up again is because: - it has become relevant - some of my ideas are in the current concept, like removing the cloak from the offensive subsystems and putting the logi and command modules there Maybe now that it's actually happening, people will take a few minutes to at least read it, even if it's really long. They are in process of a second pass on the ships, also I don't see too many similarities between current and your proposal, and almost even less with what is being suggested. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
zbaaca Republic Military Tax Avoiders 92	Posted - 2017.06.10 18:38:34 - [196] - Quote Mhari Dson wrote: I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay. caldari and drones... do you even belive in your words ? Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn GÖíGÖíGÖí
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 65	Posted - 2017.06.10 21:27:15 - [197] - Quote zbaaca wrote: Mhari Dson wrote: I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay. caldari and drones... do you even belive in your words ? Ibis, Bantam, Griffin, Heron, Moa, Blackbird, Osprey, Caracal, Drake, Ferox, Scorpion, Raven, Rokh - half of the frigates, all cruisers, the combat battlecruisers and all of the battleships have drone bays, and these are just the T1 versions. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3620	Posted - 2017.06.10 22:42:19 - [198] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: zbaaca wrote: Mhari Dson wrote: I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay. caldari and drones... do you even belive in your words ? Ibis, Bantam, Griffin, Heron, Moa, Blackbird, Osprey, Caracal, Drake, Ferox, Scorpion, Raven, Rokh - half of the frigates, all cruisers, the combat battlecruisers and all of the battleships have drone bays, and these are just the T1 versions. Old tengu only had drones on 1 sub, I don't see why the new one should get more drones. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 65	Posted - 2017.06.11 00:00:34 - [199] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: zbaaca wrote: Mhari Dson wrote: I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay. caldari and drones... do you even belive in your words ? Ibis, Bantam, Griffin, Heron, Moa, Blackbird, Osprey, Caracal, Drake, Ferox, Scorpion, Raven, Rokh - half of the frigates, all cruisers, the combat battlecruisers and all of the battleships have drone bays, and these are just the T1 versions. Old tengu only had drones on 1 sub, I don't see why the new one should get more drones. Drones are always good to have, even if only as combat utility or for salvage. A full flight of small drones are probably not necessary though, I think 10 mbit and 10 m3 bay would be enough. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3620	Posted - 2017.06.11 01:10:55 - [200] - Quote That seems to fit with the norm for caldari cruisers, looking through the ships it appeared at first glance only one had a full flight of light drones. Though we have to wait until the new stat sheets are released before we have an opportunity to voice our opinions. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 93	Posted - 2017.06.11 05:01:51 - [201] - Quote why drones on a tengu missile sub but ignore the fact legion laser sub needs them like 5x as much
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 66	Posted - 2017.06.11 10:51:43 - [202] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: why drones on a tengu missile sub but ignore the fact legion laser sub needs them like 5x as much What about giving at least 2 small drones to every offensive subsystems? If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3620	Posted - 2017.06.11 14:44:12 - [203] - Quote Is this now touching the realm of power creep? At least in terms of the re-balance? If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 66	Posted - 2017.06.11 15:13:31 - [204] - Quote Among the Caldari cruisers, only the Navy Caracal, Eagle and Onyx have no drone bays. The Zealot (Amarr), Phobos (Gallente) and Broadsword (Minmatar) also lacks drones. Interestingly, literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs. I think all cruisers should have room and be able to use at least 2 small utility drones, and this includes all possible variations of the T3Cs too. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 97	Posted - 2017.06.11 15:53:44 - [205] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Is this now touching the realm of power creep? At least in terms of the re-balance? not even remotely we are so far short of the realm of power creep its depressing not talking about t3cs specifically just the meta in general
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 97	Posted - 2017.06.11 15:56:18 - [206] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs hacs but yeah they lack drones because they arent supposed to be self sufficient they were originally designed to be fleet support ships that can pick off small targets from range such as stealth bombers they can still do that pretty well but its such a niche role they just suck and i dont see why legion should be forced into that sucky role just because zealot sucks
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 3212	Posted - 2017.06.12 11:43:52 - [207] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Among the Caldari cruisers, only the Navy Caracal, Eagle and Onyx have no drone bays. The Zealot (Amarr), Phobos (Gallente) and Broadsword (Minmatar) also lacks drones. Interestingly, literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs. I think all cruisers should have room and be able to use at least 2 small utility drones, and this includes all possible variations of the T3Cs too. No ship should automatically just get a drone bay because of its size or cost. The drone bay should also fit with the ship's role. Just needing "a little extra utility" in what is arguably the most flexible class of ships in the game is not a valid justification. Relatively Notorious By Association My Many Misadventures I predicted FAUXs
Casidian Isu Isu Biotechnology 1	Posted - 2017.06.12 16:23:41 - [208] - Quote The offensive subsystems for the tengu make it a far less viable option than the other the three to me. Maybe add an explosion radius bonus for the missile subsystem and a falloff or tracking bonus to the tengu MHT subsystem.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 127	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:47:10 - [209] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Among the Caldari cruisers, only the Navy Caracal, Eagle and Onyx have no drone bays. The Zealot (Amarr), Phobos (Gallente) and Broadsword (Minmatar) also lacks drones. Interestingly, literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs. I think all cruisers should have room and be able to use at least 2 small utility drones, and this includes all possible variations of the T3Cs too. No ship should automatically just get a drone bay because of its size or cost. The drone bay should also fit with the ship's role. Just needing "a little extra utility" in what is arguably the most flexible class of ships in the game is not a valid justification. It makes more sense for the offensive Caldari subs to have drones than the logistics. Also the Tengu configs can have as few as 2 low slots, a BCU + drones would make up for the loss of the launcher. As for the Amarr laser sub.... try flying it, never had any problems blapping frigs with it provided I took into account what I was doing.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 127	Posted - 2017.06.12 19:48:11 - [210] - Quote zbaaca wrote: Mhari Dson wrote: I also find the lack of drones on the caldari missile sub to be a hinderance as well. proposal on that bieng remove 1 launcher, shift 1 high to a low, add 25 bandwidth, 50 bay. caldari and drones... do you even belive in your words ? Probably more than you know, I've logged a couple thousand hours in a tengu.

Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 3409	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:12:46 - [211] - Quote Mhari Dson wrote: Bronson Hughes wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Among the Caldari cruisers, only the Navy Caracal, Eagle and Onyx have no drone bays. The Zealot (Amarr), Phobos (Gallente) and Broadsword (Minmatar) also lacks drones. Interestingly, literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs. I think all cruisers should have room and be able to use at least 2 small utility drones, and this includes all possible variations of the T3Cs too. No ship should automatically just get a drone bay because of its size or cost. The drone bay should also fit with the ship's role. Just needing "a little extra utility" in what is arguably the most flexible class of ships in the game is not a valid justification. It makes more sense for the offensive Caldari subs to have drones than the logistics. It's probably so you can toss some armor rep drones or something like that.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 127	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:18:01 - [212] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Mhari Dson wrote: Bronson Hughes wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Among the Caldari cruisers, only the Navy Caracal, Eagle and Onyx have no drone bays. The Zealot (Amarr), Phobos (Gallente) and Broadsword (Minmatar) also lacks drones. Interestingly, literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs. I think all cruisers should have room and be able to use at least 2 small utility drones, and this includes all possible variations of the T3Cs too. No ship should automatically just get a drone bay because of its size or cost. The drone bay should also fit with the ship's role. Just needing "a little extra utility" in what is arguably the most flexible class of ships in the game is not a valid justification. It makes more sense for the offensive Caldari subs to have drones than the logistics. It's probably so you can toss some armor rep drones or something like that. A flight of unbonused light armor/structure... hell any unbonused light rep drones are senselessly weak under the circumstances dictated for use in this case. Looks more like a "here use these to KM whore" EDIT: when can we expect this to hit SiSi? we need at least two weeks to break it so it's not unhinged when it hits TQ.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 66	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:23:07 - [213] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Among the Caldari cruisers, only the Navy Caracal, Eagle and Onyx have no drone bays. The Zealot (Amarr), Phobos (Gallente) and Broadsword (Minmatar) also lacks drones. Interestingly, literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs. I think all cruisers should have room and be able to use at least 2 small utility drones, and this includes all possible variations of the T3Cs too. No ship should automatically just get a drone bay because of its size or cost. The drone bay should also fit with the ship's role. I would try to agree with this, but every single battleship in the game has a drone bay, regardless of it's faction, cost or role, so the game itself also seem to disagree with you. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 67	Posted - 2017.06.12 20:52:40 - [214] - Quote I was looking at the drone related offensive systems, but I only see bandwidth and no info about the drone bay size. I'm mostly interested about the Proteus, because in my opinion the current drone setups are significantly worse than what other weapons can achieve. I'm glad to see that the new drone offensive system will have 100 Mbit, but I would like to know how many drones can I put in my ship. For comparison: the Ishtar has 375 m3 and the Stratios has 400 m3 drone bay, so I think 300 m3 for the new version would be reasonable. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18972	Posted - 2017.06.12 22:10:51 - [215] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Bronson Hughes wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Among the Caldari cruisers, only the Navy Caracal, Eagle and Onyx have no drone bays. The Zealot (Amarr), Phobos (Gallente) and Broadsword (Minmatar) also lacks drones. Interestingly, literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs. I think all cruisers should have room and be able to use at least 2 small utility drones, and this includes all possible variations of the T3Cs too. No ship should automatically just get a drone bay because of its size or cost. The drone bay should also fit with the ship's role. I would try to agree with this, but every single battleship in the game has a drone bay, regardless of it's faction, cost or role, so the game itself also seem to disagree with you. These are cruisers not battleships. Caldari cruisers all have poor to no drone bays because of the way missiles work. Tengu should operate in the same way.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 67	Posted - 2017.06.12 23:15:05 - [216] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Bronson Hughes wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Among the Caldari cruisers, only the Navy Caracal, Eagle and Onyx have no drone bays. The Zealot (Amarr), Phobos (Gallente) and Broadsword (Minmatar) also lacks drones. Interestingly, literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs. I think all cruisers should have room and be able to use at least 2 small utility drones, and this includes all possible variations of the T3Cs too. No ship should automatically just get a drone bay because of its size or cost. The drone bay should also fit with the ship's role. I would try to agree with this, but every single battleship in the game has a drone bay, regardless of it's faction, cost or role, so the game itself also seem to disagree with you. These are cruisers not battleships. Caldari cruisers all have poor to no drone bays because of the way missiles work. Tengu should operate in the same way. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to turn the Caldari into a drone faction, even if these tiny space pets are awesome. But not counting the Tengu, the "poor to no drone bays" still means that 9 out of the 12 ships have drone bays. And you have to admit that even a few drones are infinitely more useful than no drones. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 127	Posted - 2017.06.13 02:24:18 - [217] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Bronson Hughes wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Among the Caldari cruisers, only the Navy Caracal, Eagle and Onyx have no drone bays. The Zealot (Amarr), Phobos (Gallente) and Broadsword (Minmatar) also lacks drones. Interestingly, literally half of the ships I listed here are HICs. I think all cruisers should have room and be able to use at least 2 small utility drones, and this includes all possible variations of the T3Cs too. No ship should automatically just get a drone bay because of its size or cost. The drone bay should also fit with the ship's role. I would try to agree with this, but every single battleship in the game has a drone bay, regardless of it's faction, cost or role, so the game itself also seem to disagree with you. These are cruisers not battleships. Caldari cruisers all have poor to no drone bays because of the way missiles work. Tengu should operate in the same way. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to turn the Caldari into a drone faction, even if these tiny space pets are awesome. But not counting the Tengu, the "poor to no drone bays" still means that 9 out of the 12 ships have drone bays. And you have to admit that even a few drones are infinitely more useful than no drones. With the state of medium missile weaponry bieng poor at best over the last five years, this really shouldn't even be an argument.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18976	Posted - 2017.06.13 08:50:13 - [218] - Quote Mhari Dson wrote: With the state of medium missile weaponry bieng poor at best over the last five years, this really shouldn't even be an argument. They are reworking all mods this summer.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 821	Posted - 2017.06.13 09:54:41 - [219] - Quote I have a little concern about covert+nullify combo tank. Last night I was flying trough goons space and encountered 3 smartbombing BSs. They instantely hit me with more than 2k dmg, with current ehp (10k shield, lowest resist is 50%) it was not so much but after the rebalance overall ehp will be a lot less. Leaning toward active tanking doesn't help much with such encounters and having something as lazy as "lets bring 5 BS and smart bomb everyone who want to enter the pipe" doesn't seems to fall with "risk vs reward" null needs to be. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2265	Posted - 2017.06.13 10:21:23 - [220] - Quote I don't like the 7.5% rep bonus for the cloak/probe subsystem. It will either limit the use too much or will be unused when the ship is part of a fleet. It would be much better to have a resistance bonus. I'm very disappointing that CCP didn't take this opportunity to add a few new subsystems. I would like to see a set of industrial subsystems for industry which would have bonuses/roles for the following: Gas mining amount bonus (offensive sub): This should enable the players to create the best gas mining ship in the game. i.e. better than the venture Mass reduction (defensive sub): Reduces the mass of a T3 so that they can fit though a frigate hole but reduces the tank of the T3 Increase cargo hold (core): allows the T3 to be used as a transport ship or increases hole for mining The wishlist is pretty much complete...

Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 67	Posted - 2017.06.13 11:36:12 - [221] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: I don't like the 7.5% rep bonus for the cloak/probe subsystem. It will either limit the use too much or will be unused when the ship is part of a fleet. It would be much better to have a resistance bonus. I'm very disappointing that CCP didn't take this opportunity to add a few new subsystems. I would like to see a set of industrial subsystems for industry which would have bonuses/roles for the following: Gas mining amount bonus (offensive sub): This should enable the players to create the best gas mining ship in the game. i.e. better than the venture Mass reduction (defensive sub): Reduces the mass of a T3 so that they can fit though a frigate hole but reduces the tank of the T3 Increase cargo hold (core): allows the T3 to be used as a transport ship or increases hole for mining Personally I would separate the cloak and the probes, I think the "exploration equipment" should be a core system. This way you could make a well tanked explorer or hunter. Explorers would benefit from the tank at sleeper sites for example, while hunters could make better PVP fits. But CCP still wants to push the CPU and the powergrid core systems for some reason. Weren't these on the list of over/underused systems by the way? Also, these are combat ships not industrials. You have to wait for a similar modular T3 mining barge/exhumer class ship to have that. Which probably won't happen since ORE already has more than enough ships, the only real missing thing is a medium sized gas miner that has some gas mining bonus and it's actually able to fit 5 gas miners - or even more. The funny thing about the industrial T3 idea is even if it's completely unnecessary, it would probably be much easier to balance it well. The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed. T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role. Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 515	Posted - 2017.06.13 15:30:23 - [222] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed. T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role. Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot. In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship... Still reading comments in here, but there isn't enough info on new stats to really let us theory craft. I think a lot will depend on resist profiles, powergrid, and cpu. There are some potentially worrying ewar and tank slot combo's with the revisions. Again, I would say that until you can put some numbers behind them using the 'old' t3c stats isn't going to give you a good idea of their power.
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2266	Posted - 2017.06.13 15:46:18 - [223] - Quote @ Dior Ambraelle, you are not wrong but all i would say is that even though you may feel the T3 industrial is not needed or that we already have suitable ORE alternatives, i feel that adding these would diversify the ship class and help maintain demand for T3 components. Within wormhole space we would see more people gas mining (or ore/ice mining if they had bonuses) in expensive ships, which creates a much more worthwhile target over the 1mil isk venture. Good idea moving the cloak/probe to the core sub. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2266	Posted - 2017.06.13 15:52:16 - [224] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship... Make the cargo sub a propulsion sub and don't give it anywhere near the capacity of a transport ship. Problem solved. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 67	Posted - 2017.06.13 16:36:36 - [225] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship... I don't want nullified transports, but my Hecate has more cargo hold than my Proteus, which isn't just a bigger ship but because of it's modularity it actually does need more than an average cruiser. @Rek Seven: I would only move the probe and analyzer systems to the core, the cloak would stay in defense. The cloak gives a huge advantage that needs to be balanced somewhere. We already have enough offensive systems, and losing potential e-war bonus is not really a big deal for a lot of people. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 127	Posted - 2017.06.13 17:16:35 - [226] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Noxisia Arkana wrote: In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship... I don't want nullified transports, but my Hecate has more cargo hold than my Proteus, which isn't just a bigger ship but because of it's modularity it actually does need more than an average cruiser. @Rek Seven: I would only move the probe and analyzer systems to the core, the cloak would stay in defense. The cloak gives a huge advantage that needs to be balanced somewhere. We already have enough offensive systems, and losing potential e-war bonus is not really a big deal for a lot of people. agreed that having explo sub tied to cloak is about as borked as the current T3 sub layout.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18982	Posted - 2017.06.13 18:33:06 - [227] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed. T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role. Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot. In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship... Still reading comments in here, but there isn't enough info on new stats to really let us theory craft. I think a lot will depend on resist profiles, powergrid, and cpu. There are some potentially worrying ewar and tank slot combo's with the revisions. Again, I would say that until you can put some numbers behind them using the 'old' t3c stats isn't going to give you a good idea of their power. Bumping it up to 450m3 should do the trick if they also reuce the subsystem size from 40m3 down to 10m3.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 127	Posted - 2017.06.13 22:01:27 - [228] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Noxisia Arkana wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed. T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role. Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot. In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship... Still reading comments in here, but there isn't enough info on new stats to really let us theory craft. I think a lot will depend on resist profiles, powergrid, and cpu. There are some potentially worrying ewar and tank slot combo's with the revisions. Again, I would say that until you can put some numbers behind them using the 'old' t3c stats isn't going to give you a good idea of their power. Bumping it up to 450m3 should do the trick if they also reuce the subsystem size from 40m3 down to 10m3. Would also need a reduction in depot space cost and something added for about half a fit worth of modules, plus ammo
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 67	Posted - 2017.06.14 01:26:58 - [229] - Quote Mhari Dson wrote: baltec1 wrote: Noxisia Arkana wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed. T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role. Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot. In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship... Still reading comments in here, but there isn't enough info on new stats to really let us theory craft. I think a lot will depend on resist profiles, powergrid, and cpu. There are some potentially worrying ewar and tank slot combo's with the revisions. Again, I would say that until you can put some numbers behind them using the 'old' t3c stats isn't going to give you a good idea of their power. Bumping it up to 450m3 should do the trick if they also reuce the subsystem size from 40m3 down to 10m3. Would also need a reduction in depot space cost and something added for about half a fit worth of modules, plus ammo I think 50 m3 for a depot is fine, only the ships need to be designed to be able to always carry one with a few extra subsystems and the necessary modules, because that's how they most likely intended to be used. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18982	Posted - 2017.06.14 01:42:19 - [230] - Quote Mhari Dson wrote: Would also need a reduction in depot space cost and something added for about half a fit worth of modules, plus ammo 450m3 with the current depot should be enough room assuming the subsystems are 10m3.

Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 5	Posted - 2017.06.14 06:38:13 - [231] - Quote MWD active-tank Legion (like this https://zkillboard.com/kill/61182921/) will have 7/3 slots, canoot fit web and become unsusable ship (by current stats). With "Prop Mod Bonus" sub Legion gonna be to slow - 2000m/s with fleet boosts (2900m/s now)?. But can fit web (6/4 slots). So no more reasons to use 50mn active-tank Legion, everyone will use 100mn AB legion in small ganks. Can 50mn fit have any chances to live?
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 67	Posted - 2017.06.14 11:02:31 - [232] - Quote @ Noxisia Arkana I'm just curious: did you see here any ideas that you personally like and/or agree with lately? If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 21	Posted - 2017.06.15 03:07:23 - [233] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Also, @ CCP Fozzie I know you have a lot of work to do, but could you also communicate toward us, sometimes please? As I was reading this thread, I saw multiple people (including me) having concerns about the exploration kit is tied to the cloak-based defense. Could you please explain why exactly do you think this is good/necessary? Fozzie is not an explorer so he would probably not know/understand what we all do in the same way. While it certainly sounds like there is members of the focus group who understand and are willing to cater to our needs I am still concerned. Keypoints I have seen here and which I would agree with: Move scanning and analyzer bonus to the hull Preferrable have a separate hold for subsystem mods and rigs (maybe have 6-8 internal slots to place inactive mods/rigs in) Allow for refit from internal slots without need for mobile depot (add inactive/static timer for balance) Where possible increase hold by 15-20%
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 515	Posted - 2017.06.15 14:11:14 - [234] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: @ Noxisia Arkana I'm just curious: did you see here any ideas that you personally like and/or agree with lately? Also, @ CCP Fozzie I know you have a lot of work to do, but could you also communicate toward us, sometimes please? As I was reading this thread, I saw multiple people (including me) having concerns about the exploration kit is tied to the cloak-based defense. Could you please explain why exactly do you think this is good/necessary? There's a couple of good ideas - remember the focus group chat logs are public and linked in the first post by CCP Fozzie. My favorite (personally) thus far is giving the t3s base stats and having the subsystems alter them by a fixed amount or percentage. It sounded like the devs were open to that idea as well. Not that it was my suggestion but I supported it for a couple of reasons: 1. It'll make it easier to do math when we get some numbers on what the nerfs will do to these ships. 2. It makes it much easier for a new player to look at the ship and evaluate it's worth somewhat without playing with 100 subsystem combinations. 3. It just makes sense. There's been push back on having the probe tied to the cloak subsystem as well and we asked for it to be a ship bonus (Null FCs, lowsec, ded hunters, and others would benefit from that). I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them. There's some good industrial advice (and exploration) being given to ccp as well (such as wh data/relic sites aren't worth anything because of demand for those materials related to t3c production). We have similar concerns that I've seen voiced in the forum - certain slot layouts (8 mids, lows, or highs on some of the sub combos) seem like they could be a problem but until we know the cpu/pg and base stats of the ships I'm not going to say that they aren't workable. Me personally, I've suggested/agreed that the RR sub can still fit weapons (since dual boxing or running c4s with a small group of RR tengus is something I've enjoyed in the past and doesn't seem broken). I also expressed concern over the logi sub's initial range with large shield reps and they may end up only getting a fitting reduction (again nothing final) for mediums. There's a ton of speculation and my personal opinion after bearing/hunting in wormhole space for about 4ish years. There's a pretty varied group but I doubt we'll get it all right - so I encourage you to read what you can handle of our logs and make suggestions (you could just CTRL+F for fozzie to get a quicker view on what the devs are coming back with for discussion).
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 70	Posted - 2017.06.15 15:00:14 - [235] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them. Recon ships are kind of weird, you can't see one on d-scan, the other has cov-ops cloak, but they are e-war platforms currently. Maybe they could get a d-scan bonus based on the recon skill - up to the point where they can see the whole system while they at the sun, to make them actual recon ships. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 515	Posted - 2017.06.15 15:44:40 - [236] - Quote Yeah, we were told that changes to the recon ships were out of scope - but I think that'd be a nifty bonus; although the amount of info on dscan in a busy system could be a little overwhelming.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 70	Posted - 2017.06.15 16:19:56 - [237] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: Yeah, we were told that changes to the recon ships were out of scope - but I think that'd be a nifty bonus; although the amount of info on dscan in a busy system could be a little overwhelming. Being good as a recon pilot should need practice too, not just in-game skills. And this could be useful to find control towers that don't appear on the overview - which are being removed, so this function is wasted unless we can make hidden citadels that only appear on grid. Also, shouldn't the recon ships have probe bonuses? For being recons, they aren't bonused to find anything. For using cov-ops cloak and d-scan immunity, they should be called "anti-recon ships" at best. Also also, I can't ignore that we basically have 7 "e-war" methods that should be distributed between the 4 factions equally somehow, but usually only four of them gets bonuses from ships. ECM, web, scram and neuter/nosfer are used most often, this includes both the recon ships and the T3Cs. What about weapon disruption, sensor dampening, target painting and (because of the lack of alternative methods for Caldari) remote sensor boosting? Recons could get one set T3Cs the other, and the problem of function overlapping solved. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3620	Posted - 2017.06.16 12:29:38 - [238] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them. For HACs nerfing the base resists was a step in the right direction, they should do less DPS than the HACs also. Comparing the Proteus to the Ishtar, the Ishtar is the better ship in both tank and DPS now, comparing the Proteus to the Deimos While the Deimos has better tank now, the Proteus will out DPS the ship having 9 effective turrets with the Deimos having 7.8125 effective turrets. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 72	Posted - 2017.06.16 12:58:20 - [239] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Noxisia Arkana wrote: I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them. For HACs nerfing the base resists was a step in the right direction, they should do less DPS than the HACs also. Comparing the Proteus to the Ishtar, the Ishtar is the better ship in both tank and DPS now, comparing the Proteus to the Deimos While the Deimos has better tank now, the Proteus will out DPS the ship having 9 effective turrets with the Deimos having 7.8125 effective turrets. What about the drone bay on the Proteus? I think that's an important detail of the balance too. Should it be Ishtar, Stratios, somewhere in between or lower? If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2266	Posted - 2017.06.16 14:28:19 - [240] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them. I think the problem here is that people view the situation incorrectly. You have to remember that DPS and tank are not abilities exclusive to HACs so it is unfair for people to say that this makes the T3 a better HAC. The problem is that the majority of HACs are poorly designed (especially for close range combat) and need better bonuses/abilities. Recon ships are already better at their job than a T3, so i'm not sure what the issue is here. The wishlist is pretty much complete...

Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 515	Posted - 2017.06.16 14:56:45 - [241] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Ah ok. Personally i have no problem with the cloak, probe and exploration bonuses being on the same sub systems, it actually makes scene! My problem is the new cloak defensive subsystem is linked to a local repair bonus, which will be useless in 90% of the situations cloaked ships are currently used for. There are so many sacrifices you have to make to fit a viable local reps tank that is is often better to use a passive, thus making the bonus unused. I think the point is that they wanted to nerf the effective tank of cloaky T3s (whether solo or grabbing tackle) and they know the rep bonus is the weakest benefit that they could give it. I don't really disagree with their decision to do so. Edit: active rep bonus also sucks for fleet work; which I think works well with the covops cloak. Rep bonus is better on solo ships (although buffer is the norm on most tackle anyway; and I agree it'd be unused often). It's like the Brutix - you can buffer fit for a good effect but it's not going to end up with the prophecy's stats.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 115	Posted - 2017.06.16 15:09:26 - [242] - Quote im gonna iterate my 3 major complaints with the proposed offensive systems legion laser sub is a waste of time legion missile sub is a waste of time tengu rail sub is a waste of time
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3620	Posted - 2017.06.16 15:12:46 - [243] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Noxisia Arkana wrote: I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them. For HACs nerfing the base resists was a step in the right direction, they should do less DPS than the HACs also. Comparing the Proteus to the Ishtar, the Ishtar is the better ship in both tank and DPS now, comparing the Proteus to the Deimos While the Deimos has better tank now, the Proteus will out DPS the ship having 9 effective turrets with the Deimos having 7.8125 effective turrets. What about the drone bay on the Proteus? I think that's an important detail of the balance too. Should it be Ishtar, Stratios, somewhere in between or lower? Personally I would love to see the drone bay as a fixed stat on the ships. That being said, the Ishtar has 375, Stratios has 400, VNI has 200, current Proteus has 225, I think bumping it to 250 would be OK but I could also see dropping it down to 200. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 115	Posted - 2017.06.16 15:16:03 - [244] - Quote i think all the subs desrve a 25mb drone bay its dumb to think any ship[ builder would build a cruiser without a flight of light drones to defend itself
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 515	Posted - 2017.06.16 15:28:15 - [245] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: im gonna iterate my 3 major complaints with the proposed offensive systems legion laser sub is a waste of time legion missile sub is a waste of time tengu rail sub is a waste of time Fozzie mentioned pretty early in the discussion (late may?) that the original spreadsheet some of the subsystems looked a little powerful and some lackluster. I'm sure they'll change; eustise, caprisunkraftfoods, exooki and others had pretty solid feedback. I suggest reading the comments on the focus group; the spreadsheet was a first pass - and I think they're aware that there are some extremely strong and lackluster weapon systems: Captured from the May 30th logs (conversation starts around 1500). The link is in the first post if you'd like to read. ccp_fozzie @mawderator Legion drone/missile is probably the one that seems most likely to break things, but Proteus hybrid and Loki projectile also seem a bit dangerzone ccp_fozzie One big one is that it's a form of cost that is unique and distinct from our other form of costs. Costs for ships can come in the form of minerals, moongoo, LP, ISK, special drops, and SP in the case of the T3Cs. In general we're looking to highlight and emphasize the differences between T3Cs and other ships rather than make them more similar. ccp_fozzie well if you don't balance based on small subsections we'd only ever balance for highsec ccp_fozzie what I had in mind in this version of the design would be that the cloak subsystem wouldn't have a raw HP penalty compared to at least the normal active rep one, but that the HP would be less concentrated into the main tank types There's a lot of concern about niche play styles, creating differences between the t3cs and other ships, and making sure the weapon subs make sense. Edit - I had to edit out the time stamps because the forum thought I was using html...
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 515	Posted - 2017.06.16 15:38:17 - [246] - Quote @Omnathious Deninard: I'm going to quote fozzie here and say that I think the point is to make the ships unique from other ships not more similar. But I get what you're going for. As someone that lived out of a domi for way too long in my early eve career I have a deep love for drones and like extra bay space for when they get shot at... but I'm not sure that the t3c's should get that same luxury. I'd also enjoy the bay as part of the base ship, but a blaster proteus with 100 mb of drone width seems kind of broken.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3620	Posted - 2017.06.16 15:53:52 - [247] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: @Omnathious Deninard: I'm going to quote fozzie here and say that I think the point is to make the ships unique from other ships not more similar. But I get what you're going for. As someone that lived out of a domi for way too long in my early eve career I have a deep love for drones and like extra bay space for when they get shot at... but I'm not sure that the t3c's should get that same luxury. I'd also enjoy the bay as part of the base ship, but a blaster proteus with 100 mb of drone width seems kind of broken. I am in no way suggesting that the Bandwidth should be a fixed part of the hull, if possible I would like to see it added or subtracted based on what subsystem you have on the hull. Simply the drone storage section would be fixed. Edit: also I think the drones need to be removed from the blaster sub of the proteus. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 515	Posted - 2017.06.16 16:38:59 - [248] - Quote @Omnathious Deninard: ah the bay, I thought you were thinking both. Right now the blaster prot gets +25 mb and the drone gets +100. Seems okay. I think having the bay on the hull might be weird because you could end up with 25 mb and have a 200 m3 bay or 100 mb with 200m3; which would make the drone sub kind of crappy (less flights). The m3 is hypothetical, not based on any real numbers but illustrative.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3620	Posted - 2017.06.16 16:41:51 - [249] - Quote You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 72	Posted - 2017.06.16 19:04:17 - [250] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay. I think even a 300 m3 drone bay would be fine. The main reason I'm not using the current drone Proteus is it's really low bandwidth and drone bay compared to other cruisers of the same price. Noxisia Arkana wrote: I think the point is that they wanted to nerf the effective tank of cloaky T3s (whether solo or grabbing tackle) and they know the rep bonus is the weakest benefit that they could give it. I don't really disagree with their decision to do so. Edit: active rep bonus also sucks for fleet work; which I think works well with the covops cloak. Rep bonus is better on solo ships (although buffer is the norm on most tackle anyway; and I agree it'd be unused often). It's like the Brutix - you can buffer fit for a good effect but it's not going to end up with the prophecy's stats. Here is a wild idea to make T3Cs' cloak unique: remove the local rep bonuses, but allow them to use local rep modules and the nano repair paste while they are cloaked, maybe with reduced efficiency. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 72	Posted - 2017.06.16 19:27:54 - [251] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Personally i have no problem with the cloak, probe and exploration bonuses being on the same sub systems, it actually makes scene! I would argue with this. A good example are the sleeper cache sites: if you screw up something you get a lot of dps on you. If you tie the cloak and the probe+analyzers together, I see 2 potential results: - with the exploration subsystem you have a fair chance to complete the site, but a little mistake will probably result in losing your ship - with an actual tank based defense you have a good chance to survive when the site blows up, which will happen because your analyzers aren't as good as they should be Separating the cloak from the rest means you can have a good tank and a good exploration equipment, so you only need to worry about other players. If you are a hunter you have the same options: have a cloak to sneak up on people, or have a tank and better chance of winning, while you don't have to sacrifice your probing bonuses. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3621	Posted - 2017.06.17 13:23:34 - [252] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay. I think even a 300 m3 drone bay would be fine. The main reason I'm not using the current drone Proteus is it's really low bandwidth and drone bay compared to other cruisers of the same price. The Proteus is not supposed to have a similar drone bay as the Stratios or the bandwidth of the Ishtar, it has options that both of those ships don't have, needing to sacrifice a little bit of drone bay is a fair trade off. The reason I didn't like to use a drone proteus was the difficult slot layout it created 6 high slots, 3 turret hardpoints, 3 mid slots and 7 low slots is a difficult drone cruiser. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2267	Posted - 2017.06.17 18:36:22 - [253] - Quote Although it is not a problem for my play style, I think that people do have legitimate concerns with regards to the cloak and scanning roles being linked. Again, I would suggest that a new line of industrial/pve subsystems are added and that the exploration roles could be tied to this. This would mean keeping the 5 subsystem model. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Cartheron Crust Matari Exodus 220	Posted - 2017.06.17 21:54:38 - [254] - Quote Any reason why we don't have access to the google doc anymore? Changes?
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3621	Posted - 2017.06.17 22:46:46 - [255] - Quote I would expect it's because they are updating to the new figures. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 72	Posted - 2017.06.17 23:26:43 - [256] - Quote Cartheron Crust wrote: Any reason why we don't have access to the google doc anymore? Changes? Here are the new documents: Legion Tengu Proteus Loki Finally some numbers! Good news: free probe launcher for everyone and a dedicated subsystem bay. The analyzers are still together with the cloak though. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Edlorna Tinebe The Elerium Trust 19	Posted - 2017.06.18 01:32:07 - [257] - Quote When I first heard that there would be a shake-up of the Strategic Cruisers, with fewer subsystems, I actually hoped that they'd get the same mode-switching mechanic that the tactical destroyers do. As a twist for the cruisers, though, the bonuses for each mode would be determined by the subsystems fitted, with the Core subsystem being always active. It seemed like it might make this "do everything at once" problem a bit easier to balance out.
zbaaca Republic Military Tax Avoiders 93	Posted - 2017.06.18 03:41:53 - [258] - Quote it looks like ccp dont hear THAT CALDARI DONT LIKE STUPID KINETIC LOCK Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn GÖíGÖíGÖí
Ele Rebellion Fat Dragon Mining Co. Darwinism. 78	Posted - 2017.06.18 03:47:18 - [259] - Quote @ CCP Fozzie I'm looking at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q0HSnCO8ZF5L_VdoIqPRBPqexbWAj2LPWJhhRh7BALk/edit 3 Midslots for proteus!?! This will completely kill it. My Current Tackle Proteus Setup HighSlots -Covert Cyno -Cyno -Sisters Core Probe Launcher -A-Type Small Nos -Cover Ops Cloak Midslots -B-Type 50mn MWD -True Sansha Warp Scrambler -True Sansha Warp Scrambler -Federation Navy Stasis Web -Sensor Booster II Lowslots -Damage Control II -Imperial Navy Enam -Imperial Navy Enam -Dark Blood Energized Explosive -Federation Navy 1600 -Federation Navy 1600 Subsystems -Graviational Capacitor -Covert Reconfig - Cap Regen Matrix -Augmented Plating -Friction Extension Slot Layout H5 M5 L6 I understand reducing the tank of the tackle proteus. But to cut it down to 3 midslots removes any effective role it could have as a tackler. I was ok with the original plan to go 7/4/6 layout (even though I didn't like it) Also you are proposing a 9 Highslot layout with those subsystems in the link above. Did you realize this?
Eustise Mass Collapse It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake 9	Posted - 2017.06.18 04:43:54 - [260] - Quote An explo update on the new numbers. Here's a sheet i've been working with: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KHX0UbkcCTQRtfmL1xIQ8TC8UytrS6N5Tm-jpCJsUDI/edit?usp=sharing In short, we will enjoy bigger locking ranges, even with the -20km from the nullification system, given that we'll be able to fit the +locking range sub now, compared to most current sub fits. We'll also enjoy a fully bonused offensive system. That aside... we're really in the crapper EHP wise. All T3's lost 17% resistences off the top 2 main ones. That wouldn't be the end of the world, but without a defensive sub (judging off a future explofit), we're looking at the raw HP of the main tanking surfaces each losing roughly 45% HP, and considering hull as well, we're looking at 38% drop in overall raw HP. Combined with the 17% resistences, it's almost certain that we may need to switch to a Defensive sub to run any ghost/sleeper caches. I'll be asking and figuring out if this is part of the plan, but i'm honestly not expecting for a lot of consideration to be given to the ability of an 'adaptable' T3C to not need to 'adapt', aka, running the sites in full cloakynullified.

Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.18 04:58:13 - [261] - Quote Having the drone bay (not bandwidth) as part of the hull makes sense in that if you swap offensive subs to a non drone carrier, you suddenly have to stash a huge amount of drones in cargo. 9 highslot proteus might be entertaining til it crashes your client repeatedly. if its workable, sign me up. Trying to tie exploration to a terribad tank isn't fun, it's annoying, re: Stratios Since exploration bonuses have zero weight in the system just make 'em hull bonuses instead. It does after all fit with the theme T3c's were created with originally. HAC's and Recons: both have issues and need work, trying to balance against them while they're still dysfunctional is kind of pointless, seems like we need a slow burn focus on fixing T2 cruisers as a whole. This is also beyond the scope of the current project. Been waiting for this rebalance for years guys, let's not shove it too far the other direction, I'd rather not be stuck driving donut ships around hisec til 2021.
Siobhan MacLeary Hole Violence Goonswarm Federation 240	Posted - 2017.06.18 05:46:01 - [262] - Quote Public access to the WIP spreadsheet seems to have been revoked. GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ - CCP Soundwave
Bromum Atom Vodka wh0res and a lil bit 5	Posted - 2017.06.18 07:03:16 - [263] - Quote Quote: 5% bonus to the benefits of overhearing armor and shield hardeners. This bonus work good on shield ship, you can fit 1-2 Adaptive Invulnerability Field overheat them and get effect of bonus. But at armor ship with redused base resistance this bonus is usefull only at owertanked ships with 4 Armor Hardeners.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 72	Posted - 2017.06.18 09:31:23 - [264] - Quote Ele Rebellion wrote: @ CCP Fozzie 3 Midslots for proteus!?! This will completely kill it. I understand reducing the tank of the tackle proteus. But to cut it down to 3 midslots removes any effective role it could have as a tackler. I was ok with the original plan to go 7/4/6 layout (even though I didn't like it) Also you are proposing a 9 Highslot layout with those subsystems in the link above. Did you realize this? I think the localized injectors subsystem supposed to have 1 mid instead of 1 high. But an explorer configuration still only has 3 mids which is really few. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 72	Posted - 2017.06.18 09:38:02 - [265] - Quote zbaaca wrote: it looks like ccp dont hear THAT CALDARI DONT LIKE STUPID KINETIC LOCK Why don't we distribute all missile types equally by the way? Amarr: EM and thermal Caldari: thermal and kinetic Minmatar: kinetic and explosive I know, Caldari is the missile faction, but the other 2 are using missiles quite often, and this would fit the factions' damage pattern too. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1266	Posted - 2017.06.18 10:38:27 - [266] - Quote it would be so much easier too just bake all the stats and slots into the hulls instead of each sub adding/subtracting slots having different stats/drones etc... subs should just be about bonuses and nothing else with all changes in the bonuses/traits section.. it would be so much less of a headache... T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely. ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3621	Posted - 2017.06.18 11:22:06 - [267] - Quote Why did the Proteus Drone synthesis projector take such a large hit to the drone bay size? 175m I very small for having 100mbps If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 823	Posted - 2017.06.18 12:55:12 - [268] - Quote Align time is too high. From instawarping to BS align time? "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2267	Posted - 2017.06.18 13:47:04 - [269] - Quote So the drone Proteus that currently hardly gets used is going to be made worse? Good job guys! The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Uriam Khanid New Machinarium Corporation 87	Posted - 2017.06.18 14:37:26 - [270] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Why don't we distribute all missile types equally by the way? Amarr: EM and thermal Caldari: thermal and kinetic Minmatar: kinetic and explosive agree. may be something different: Amarr - damage and RoF (propose sub) Minimatar - only RoF (proposed sub) Caldari - only damage (currently only RoF plus kinetic damage)

Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 74	Posted - 2017.06.18 22:23:06 - [271] - Quote Uriam Khanid wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Why don't we distribute all missile types equally by the way? Amarr: EM and thermal Caldari: thermal and kinetic Minmatar: kinetic and explosive agree. may be something different: Amarr - damage and RoF (propose sub) Minimatar - only RoF (proposed sub) Caldari - only damage (currently only RoF plus kinetic damage) Why not give them completely different bonuses then? Caldari - damage bonus: direct upgrade on the missiles Amarr - explosion velocity/radius bonus: better targeting system Minmatar - RoF bonus: simply shooting faster If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 242	Posted - 2017.06.19 02:11:41 - [272] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: So the drone Proteus that currently hardly gets used is going to be made worse? Good job guys! Give it specific bonuses to medium drones only, to make it unique. The Gila would like a word with you.
zbaaca Republic Military Tax Avoiders 93	Posted - 2017.06.19 03:40:12 - [273] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Why not give them completely different bonuses then? Caldari - damage bonus: direct upgrade on the missiles Amarr - explosion velocity/radius bonus: better targeting system Minmatar - RoF bonus: simply shooting faster ehm... application > pure damage . i dont see how caldari will be more attractive , or even attractive at all , then amarr with that sets of bonuses Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn GÖíGÖíGÖí
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 129	Posted - 2017.06.19 08:39:44 - [274] - Quote seems no one is happy with the proposed changes so far well at least loki is still looking decent
DeadDuck The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 210	Posted - 2017.06.19 09:46:31 - [275] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: seems no one is happy with the proposed changes so far well at least loki is still looking decent Maybe thats a sign they are actually making a good job
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2268	Posted - 2017.06.19 10:24:01 - [276] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Rek Seven wrote: So the drone Proteus that currently hardly gets used is going to be made worse? Good job guys! Give it specific bonuses to medium drones only, to make it unique. The Gila would like a word with you. Fair point. I was thinking unique in the role of an armour drone boat. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18989	Posted - 2017.06.19 10:48:43 - [277] - Quote I'm worried recons are going to be obsolete.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 74	Posted - 2017.06.19 11:00:03 - [278] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I'm worried recons are going to be obsolete. They don't want to touch the recon ships for some reason. And the keep pushing the same 4 e-war systems while they have 7. Or 8 if we count remote sensor boosting too. It should be really easy to not make them overlap. I still think they should make the recon ships able to actually recon instead of being sneaky e-war platforms, by giving them level-based probe and d-scan bonus. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Chan'aar State War Academy Caldari State 109	Posted - 2017.06.19 11:14:26 - [279] - Quote Loki Core systems seem to have a missmatch. The PG one (Augmented Nuclear Reactor) has a 20% role bonus to PG output. The CPU one (Dissolution Sequencer) has NO bonus to cpu output ? This does not seem right to me and makes fits very very tight.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18990	Posted - 2017.06.19 11:35:34 - [280] - Quote Chan'aar wrote: Loki Core systems seem to have a missmatch. The PG one (Augmented Nuclear Reactor) has a 20% role bonus to PG output. The CPU one (Dissolution Sequencer) has NO bonus to cpu output ? This does not seem right to me and makes fits very very tight. Probably intentional. T3C have had a really big problem with being far too generous with fitting.

Cartheron Crust Matari Exodus 220	Posted - 2017.06.19 12:07:03 - [281] - Quote Ele Rebellion wrote: @ CCP Fozzie I'm looking at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q0HSnCO8ZF5L_VdoIqPRBPqexbWAj2LPWJhhRh7BALk/edit 3 Midslots for proteus!?! This will completely kill it. My Current Tackle Proteus Setup HighSlots -Covert Cyno -Cyno -Sisters Core Probe Launcher -A-Type Small Nos -Cover Ops Cloak Midslots -B-Type 50mn MWD -True Sansha Warp Scrambler -True Sansha Warp Scrambler -Federation Navy Stasis Web -Sensor Booster II Lowslots -Damage Control II -Imperial Navy Enam -Imperial Navy Enam -Dark Blood Energized Explosive -Federation Navy 1600 -Federation Navy 1600 Subsystems -Graviational Capacitor -Covert Reconfig - Cap Regen Matrix -Augmented Plating -Friction Extension Slot Layout H5 M5 L6 I understand reducing the tank of the tackle proteus. But to cut it down to 3 midslots removes any effective role it could have as a tackler. I was ok with the original plan to go 7/4/6 layout (even though I didn't like it) Also you are proposing a 9 Highslot layout with those subsystems in the link above. Did you realize this? +1 Three mid slots is terrible. Likewise three/two low slots for the loki in some configurations is also very bad. It would make sense to drop some highs (1-2) from the command/RR subsystem and drop them into mids/lows. Also lol at nine high slots being possible. How much would this break the game?
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 74	Posted - 2017.06.19 12:43:00 - [282] - Quote Cartheron Crust wrote: Also lol at nine high slots being possible. How much would this break the game? I don't think this would break the game, only the UI of the fitting window. Having 8 slots of anything is a decision of design, not the limit of the engine. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3621	Posted - 2017.06.19 16:16:20 - [283] - Quote These look like they will out tank and out DPS HACs still. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1266	Posted - 2017.06.19 17:08:53 - [284] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: These look like they will out tank and out DPS HACs still. i agree.. i think removing rigs is the best answer here.. as the ability too put on 3 T2 rigs means they always will have better EHP than HAC's, and since T3's are getting even better OH bonuses on active mods like hardeners and reps surely they don't need such high hp numbers now.. plus reducing the cost of a build by at least 60mil is necessary too improve the have multiple builds option T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 75	Posted - 2017.06.19 17:12:18 - [285] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: These look like they will out tank and out DPS HACs still. Yes, and this seem to be the continuous problem of the T3Cs, but if you have a ship of the same class and same role that costs more, wouldn't you expect it to be better? Maybe the real problem isn't the overlapping roles, but the too easy access. What if we would increase the skill requirements of the strategic cruiser skill by adding the recon ships IV, HACs IV, HICs IV and logistics cruisers IV to it's required skills list? I know this would make the T3Cs inaccessible to a lot of people including me, but wouldn't it be logical? If you want to have a ship that can combine the others, you should be quite good with the others firs. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues Hookers N' Blow 42	Posted - 2017.06.19 18:52:22 - [286] - Quote What about the industry side of things? Where and how will we see increased costs.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 75	Posted - 2017.06.19 19:10:06 - [287] - Quote Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote: What about the industry side of things? Where and how will we see increased costs. They want to add new WH materials if I get it right. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Uriam Khanid New Machinarium Corporation 87	Posted - 2017.06.19 20:03:16 - [288] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs . a small correction
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 242	Posted - 2017.06.20 01:50:33 - [289] - Quote They really should consider changing these to require BC 5 and just label them as BCs. Increase the build cost a little further and call it good. I'd still call for a nerf to speed with this regardless but at least doing this everything will begin to actually line up with their power.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.20 02:03:19 - [290] - Quote Eustise wrote: An explo update on the new numbers. Here's a sheet i've been working with: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KHX0UbkcCTQRtfmL1xIQ8TC8UytrS6N5Tm-jpCJsUDI/edit?usp=sharing In short, we will enjoy bigger locking ranges, even with the -20km from the nullification system, given that we'll be able to fit the +locking range sub now compared to most c. In short, this will kill the Tengu for use in Superior Sleeper caches. It will not be able to tank those anymore. It will not allow you to tank the damage in either solar or Sentries room from what I see and two back2back Massive Shockwaves in Archive room will kill lthe ship as it evaporates the shield with no time to regen. RIP explo Tengu The reason why covert was in offensive is because in most case when used it will be used instead of weapons. Now, being in defensive it basically kills the ability to create a viable and well tanked explorer. When I come into a system cloacked and nullified, I am still seen (briefly) when coming in.. It's justa matter of combat probing to find me while refitting.. Basically negates the purpose of both Cloak and Nullification.. But then, that seems to be the whole idea.. Give the PVP crowd their pewpew.

Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.20 02:12:44 - [291] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: Eustise wrote: An explo update on the new numbers. Here's a sheet i've been working with: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KHX0UbkcCTQRtfmL1xIQ8TC8UytrS6N5Tm-jpCJsUDI/edit?usp=sharing In short, we will enjoy bigger locking ranges, even with the -20km from the nullification system, given that we'll be able to fit the +locking range sub now compared to most c. In short, this will kill the Tengu for use in Superior Sleeper caches. It will not be able to tank those anymore. It will not allow you to tank the damage in either solar or Sentries room from what I see and two back2back Massive Shockwaves in Archive room will kill lthe ship as it evaporates the shield with no time to regen. RIP explo Tengu The reason why covert was in offensive is because in most case when used it will be used instead of weapons. Now, being in defensive it basically kills the ability to create a viable and well tanked explorer. When I come into a system cloacked and nullified, I am still seen (briefly) when coming in.. It's justa matter of combat probing to find me while refitting.. Basically negates the purpose of both Cloak and Nullification.. But then, that seems to be the whole idea.. Give the PVP crowd their pewpew. Not bieng able to perform their role is a definite fail. Unchain exploration from cloak. Also the stats need more work than the deadline is going to allow at the current rate, I've got a gamebreaker or two to abuse til the next rework.
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 1619	Posted - 2017.06.20 03:29:59 - [292] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Here is an idea that most likely will break everything, and would probably require to change the current approach, but I just want to leave it here. Rare, pirate faction subsystems. One subsystem of each type, these would need the involved factions skills, and could be fit to the involved factions' ships only. Concord subsystems could be fit on all 4 ships, the SOE defensive subsystem would give cloak and a good tank, Proteus and Tengu cold have Mordu's Legion's long range scram, while Loki and Legion could benefit from the Blood Raiders' neuter/nosfer bonus. Actually having one subsystem of the T3Cs themselves, particularly either an offensive, defensive or electronic sub being a single faction variant would facilitate the entire idea of faction T3Cs which people have been screaming about for ages. And only a single sub giving different pirate faction bonii wouldnt be a hard balance issue and could be mitigated by rarity, manufacturing costs and costs overall. Another idea would be that these subs could be placed on each T3C as well but this would be more of a balance issue and a bit of a stretch imo. Making this sub rare, putting them as ultra rare ghost site drops or sleeper site drops wouldnt mean overfarming nor fleets of such ships running around. Ironically tying SP loss to only these subs would also be a good balance issue while removing the SP loss for the general T3C hull. So +1 for you on this one. Have you heard anything I've said? You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right? That's right. Had to end sometime.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 130	Posted - 2017.06.20 05:02:19 - [293] - Quote Uriam Khanid wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs . a small correction seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash
Daichi Yamato Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass 3963	Posted - 2017.06.20 05:05:34 - [294] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: These look like they will out tank and out DPS HACs still. They will have heavily nerfed t3 mobility by the looks of things. Like someone said, you could class them as bc's, EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
zbaaca Republic Military Tax Avoiders 93	Posted - 2017.06.20 08:07:48 - [295] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: What if we would increase the skill requirements of the strategic cruiser skill by adding the recon ships IV, HACs IV, HICs IV and logistics cruisers IV to it's required skills list? I know this would make the T3Cs inaccessible to a lot of people including me interesting idea . but it will work only if u give bonuses from skills to hull. as i must remind you that before commands req was overhauled non of them required any links , now many dont have them now , and and able to train and fly comms Nasar Vyron wrote: They really should consider changing these to require BC 5 and just label them as BCs. Increase the build cost a little further and call it good. I'd still call for a nerf to speed with this regardless but at least doing this everything will begin to actually line up with their power. and old players benefit again , like ones that got free sp when destr and bc skill splitted into racial . what would you do if you are able to fly t3 one day and never-ever bothered to learn bc and anything beyond because they have no place in your game style , and now you have to get bc to 5 and you cant play your shiny ship untill you get skill , and sp inj will give you only 150k both of options will impact fresh players only . and both are bad Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn GÖíGÖíGÖí
Uriam Khanid New Machinarium Corporation 87	Posted - 2017.06.20 09:12:38 - [296] - Quote zbaaca wrote: and old players benefit again , like ones that got free sp when destr and bc skill splitted into racial . what would you do if you are able to fly t3 one day and never-ever bothered to learn bc and anything beyond because they have no place in your game style , and now you have to get bc to 5 and you cant play your shiny ship untill you get skill , and sp inj will give you only 150k both of options will impact fresh players only . and both are bad you mean old casual player that weeping on forums when CCP rework his presious overpowered ship?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1266	Posted - 2017.06.20 10:06:02 - [297] - Quote As much as i applaud finding ways too reduce the T3's power level im not sure making there sig as big as an attack battlecruiser is quite the way, after all they are cruisers.. i tend too worry what the tengus sig will be after the change aswell... if its part of the cloaky interdiction issue then just nerf that subs sig instead, i would much prefer the rigs being removed as the way of keeping there tank down too decent levels along with the resist nerf, and the nice side effect is it will encourage more multi builds as the cost and space issue is dealt with.. T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18992	Posted - 2017.06.20 10:33:53 - [298] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: Uriam Khanid wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs . a small correction seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash No that's good balancing, bad balancing is buffing everything else to match the 4 problem ships. We call that power creep and it's very damaging to the wider game.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18992	Posted - 2017.06.20 10:35:59 - [299] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: Eustise wrote: An explo update on the new numbers. Here's a sheet i've been working with: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KHX0UbkcCTQRtfmL1xIQ8TC8UytrS6N5Tm-jpCJsUDI/edit?usp=sharing In short, we will enjoy bigger locking ranges, even with the -20km from the nullification system, given that we'll be able to fit the +locking range sub now compared to most c. In short, this will kill the Tengu for use in Superior Sleeper caches. It will not be able to tank those anymore. It will not allow you to tank the damage in either solar or Sentries room from what I see and two back2back Massive Shockwaves in Archive room will kill lthe ship as it evaporates the shield with no time to regen. RIP explo Tengu The reason why covert was in offensive is because in most case when used it will be used instead of weapons. Now, being in defensive it basically kills the ability to create a viable and well tanked explorer. When I come into a system cloacked and nullified, I am still seen (briefly) when coming in.. It's justa matter of combat probing to find me while refitting.. Basically negates the purpose of both Cloak and Nullification.. But then, that seems to be the whole idea.. Give the PVP crowd their pewpew. If no other cruiser can run these sites then why should t3c?
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 76	Posted - 2017.06.20 11:17:27 - [300] - Quote zbaaca wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: What if we would increase the skill requirements of the strategic cruiser skill by adding the recon ships IV, HACs IV, HICs IV and logistics cruisers IV to it's required skills list? I know this would make the T3Cs inaccessible to a lot of people including me interesting idea . but it will work only if u give bonuses from skills to hull. as i must remind you that before commands req was overhauled non of them required any links , now many dont have them now , and and able to train and fly comms I don't think the hull bonuses are necessary, but significantly increasing the skill requirement would make sense. T3Cs are kind of supposed to be "end-game" ships, and I think it isn't logical to try to squeeze them into a place where they can't fit, based on a conception/rule that they always were ignoring. According to EVE Uni the logistics cruisers need 48 days to learn, followed by the T3Cs with 60.5 days, then recon ships with 61.5 days, HACs with 63 days, and finally HICs with 71 days. It literally makes no sense to learn any T2 ships instead of the T3C, except the HICs. Increasing the skill requirement by all T2 cruiser skills would mean that you can have a ship that's better than the rest, because you actually have to learn the rest first. Adding advanced weapon upgrades V will place these closer to marauders' learning time, and at that point you are allowed to be OP. But instead of rethinking wether or not the rules are valid, we try to nerf these ships to not step on the toes of the T2 line, and as a result their only valuable function will be the nullification. The explorer fits are already being killed with low EHP and painfully few mid slots on armored ships. This means you either pick the cloak to have a chance of a successful hack, or pick a tank to survive when every second container blows up, while constantly going back to the depot to switch between data and relic analyzers because 3 slots isn't enough to have both with a propulsion mod and an utility like a cargo scanner or a scrambler. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 131	Posted - 2017.06.20 16:22:40 - [301] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: Uriam Khanid wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs . a small correction seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash No that's good balancing, bad balancing is buffing everything else to match the 4 problem ships. We call that power creep and it's very damaging to the wider game. so by nerfing t3cs to hac levels hacs wont be in the trash anymore cant say im convinced also i think cses are fine tbh theyre in a nice place and have a good role
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.20 16:29:38 - [302] - Quote baltec1 wrote: BESTER bm wrote: Eustise wrote: An explo update on the new numbers. Here's a sheet i've been working with: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KHX0UbkcCTQRtfmL1xIQ8TC8UytrS6N5Tm-jpCJsUDI/edit?usp=sharing In short, we will enjoy bigger locking ranges, even with the -20km from the nullification system, given that we'll be able to fit the +locking range sub now compared to most c. In short, this will kill the Tengu for use in Superior Sleeper caches. It will not be able to tank those anymore. It will not allow you to tank the damage in either solar or Sentries room from what I see and two back2back Massive Shockwaves in Archive room will kill lthe ship as it evaporates the shield with no time to regen. RIP explo Tengu The reason why covert was in offensive is because in most case when used it will be used instead of weapons. Now, being in defensive it basically kills the ability to create a viable and well tanked explorer. When I come into a system cloacked and nullified, I am still seen (briefly) when coming in.. It's justa matter of combat probing to find me while refitting.. Basically negates the purpose of both Cloak and Nullification.. But then, that seems to be the whole idea.. Give the PVP crowd their pewpew. If no other cruiser can run these sites then why should t3c? there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore 242	Posted - 2017.06.20 17:06:30 - [303] - Quote zbaaca wrote: ... Nasar Vyron wrote: They really should consider changing these to require BC 5 and just label them as BCs. Increase the build cost a little further and call it good. I'd still call for a nerf to speed with this regardless but at least doing this everything will begin to actually line up with their power. and old players benefit again , like ones that got free sp when destr and bc skill splitted into racial . what would you do if you are able to fly t3 one day and never-ever bothered to learn bc and anything beyond because they have no place in your game style , and now you have to get bc to 5 and you cant play your shiny ship untill you get skill , and sp inj will give you only 150k both of options will impact fresh players only . and both are bad Newbro - I'd be glad that injectors exist. Vet - I'd be wondering to myself how in the hell I got so many SP that I only got 150m an injector and never thought to train BC or BB at all along the way. I'd also realize that I have time between now and patch day to train the old fashion way. Both - I'd realize that nothing is ever set in stone in EVE and we will always have to adapt to our changing environment. This includes training to be able to fly a wide variety of ships should a chance be implemented making my current ship obsolete. While I can understand BC 5 is a relatively long train if you only were willing to ever train cruiser 5. It's not a huge step in regards to attempting to balance a ship without having to completely overhaul a hull type that many have dedicated their playstyle around. I'm surprised more WH goers weren't originally pushing for a reclassification rather than a rework from the very beginning. Even if they were to announce these changes today, you would still have the time to train BC 5 long before the patch hits for at least 1 of the hulls. Possibly all 4 if CCP decided to push the date further in order to give people that much more time to train so when the patch did hit nobody would be caught off guard.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18992	Posted - 2017.06.20 18:40:07 - [304] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: Uriam Khanid wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: These look like they will out tank and out DPS even CSs . a small correction seems more of a problem with hacs than t3s and cses balancing to the lowest denominator just ends up with a bunch of ship classes in the trash No that's good balancing, bad balancing is buffing everything else to match the 4 problem ships. We call that power creep and it's very damaging to the wider game. so by nerfing t3cs to hac levels hacs wont be in the trash anymore cant say im convinced also i think cses are fine tbh theyre in a nice place and have a good role HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18992	Posted - 2017.06.20 18:43:26 - [305] - Quote Mhari Dson wrote: there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null. So yea, if a recon cannot run these sites then why should a T3C? The whole point of these high end sites is to offer great reward for high risk. T3C have made it rather low risk so its a good thing them not being able to run them anymore.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 131	Posted - 2017.06.20 19:37:31 - [306] - Quote baltec1 wrote: HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers. which other cruisers the ones all in the trash only (non t3) cruisers i see are gila cyna stratios all pirates maybe a vaga dies or a cerb dies meaningless garbage theres only one good cruiser and that is the cruiser you dont see pilgrim stratios
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18993	Posted - 2017.06.20 20:40:45 - [307] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers. which other cruisers the ones all in the trash only (non t3) cruisers i see are gila cyna stratios all pirates maybe a vaga dies or a cerb dies meaningless garbage theres only one good cruiser and that is the cruiser you dont see pilgrim stratios <- this one is garbage Thats because you are used to T3C.
Moth Eisig 113	Posted - 2017.06.20 20:44:56 - [308] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Mhari Dson wrote: there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null. So yea, if a recon cannot run these sites then why should a T3C? The whole point of these high end sites is to offer great reward for high risk. T3C have made it rather low risk so its a good thing them not being able to run them anymore. Sleeper caches were basically made to give exploration t3s a reason for existing after rats were removed from exloration sites. If t3s can't do those sites any better than an Astero, what's the point of ever using a t3 for exploration? On top of that tou'd have game content that never gets used. Doing exploration sites in a billion isk ship not fitted for pvp was already pretty good risk for the benefit.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18993	Posted - 2017.06.20 20:51:04 - [309] - Quote Moth Eisig wrote: baltec1 wrote: Mhari Dson wrote: there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null. So yea, if a recon cannot run these sites then why should a T3C? The whole point of these high end sites is to offer great reward for high risk. T3C have made it rather low risk so its a good thing them not being able to run them anymore. Sleeper caches were basically made to give exploration t3s a reason for existing after rats were removed from exloration sites. If t3s can't do those sites any better than an Astero, what's the point of ever using a t3 for exploration? On top of that tou'd have game content that never gets used. Doing exploration sites in a billion isk ship not fitted for pvp was already pretty good risk for the benefit. Why should the T3C which is supposed to be a generalist be as good or better than a specialised ship?
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 78	Posted - 2017.06.20 21:00:51 - [310] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Moth Eisig wrote: baltec1 wrote: Mhari Dson wrote: there's only one other exploration cruiser and it's initial design was nerfed below the state of running a superior cache due to whining over it bieng too powerful for null. So yea, if a recon cannot run these sites then why should a T3C? The whole point of these high end sites is to offer great reward for high risk. T3C have made it rather low risk so its a good thing them not being able to run them anymore. Sleeper caches were basically made to give exploration t3s a reason for existing after rats were removed from exloration sites. If t3s can't do those sites any better than an Astero, what's the point of ever using a t3 for exploration? On top of that tou'd have game content that never gets used. Doing exploration sites in a billion isk ship not fitted for pvp was already pretty good risk for the benefit. Why should the T3C which is supposed to be a generalist be as good or better than a specialised ship? Again: what does "generalist" mean? Also, why would you make a ship that's more expensive than the T2 ships, and has penalty for losing it if it should be weaker than every T2 and pirate cruiser? If T3Cs were an upgrade on T2 ships that can combine their abilities and would require all T2 cruiser skills then we wouldn't have this mess. You can't blame the ships for being broken if the rule makes no sense. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.20 21:07:06 - [311] - Quote baltec1 wrote: If no other cruiser can run these sites then why should t3c? Because these are not any other Cruisers, they are T3/higher end/more flexible/more powerful cruisers. T3C come with a hefty skill requiremant, will generally cost a good bit more and carry a significant penalty for losing it beyond just losing the ship. Seems to me that would call for some balance.. Instead it seems CCP and the pewew crowd in the game seem to prefer it to be 'just another cruiser' as they are unable to deal with it otherwise. baltec1 wrote: Why should the T3C which is supposed to be a generalist be as good or better than a specialised ship? First off, it appears you have never run these sites so you would not know what you are talking about. Second, there really is no alternative to the T3C to run these sites. There is nothing beyond an explo fit T3C that wil lgive me the bonusses on scanning/hacking and even the T3C is relatively slow for this purpose. Frankly, the rewards from these sites barely justify the investment of SP and ship/fit required Fozzie said they wanted to preserve the exploration role, it is quite clear from the latest information he either lied or has no clue about what is required to run these sites.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 131	Posted - 2017.06.20 21:08:42 - [312] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: HACs are not bad ships compared to the other cruisers. which other cruisers the ones all in the trash only (non t3) cruisers i see are gila cyna stratios all pirates maybe a vaga dies or a cerb dies meaningless garbage theres only one good cruiser and that is the cruiser you dont see pilgrim stratios <- this one is garbage Thats because you are used to T3C. how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake
Matthias Ancaladron Wrath of Angels Solitaire. 372	Posted - 2017.06.20 21:39:09 - [313] - Quote So are we all agreed? Delete t3s entirely from game yet? Yes? Great! Good job everyone, last one out of thread turn off lights.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 78	Posted - 2017.06.20 22:09:51 - [314] - Quote Matthias Ancaladron wrote: So are we all agreed? Delete t3s entirely from game yet? Yes? Great! Good job everyone, last one out of thread turn off lights. I never said we should delete them. The concept of mixing functions to build truly personal and unique ships is amazing! But this should be "endgame" content, not faster to learn than 3 of the 4 T2 cruisers. The idea is good, it's just put to a horrible place. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18994	Posted - 2017.06.20 22:44:09 - [315] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Again: what does "generalist" mean? Jack of all trades, master of none. Dior Ambraelle wrote: Also, why would you make a ship that's more expensive than the T2 ships, and has penalty for losing it if it should be weaker than every T2 and pirate cruiser? If T3Cs were an upgrade on T2 ships that can combine their abilities and would require all T2 cruiser skills then we wouldn't have this mess. You can't blame the ships for being broken if the rule makes no sense. Kronos is less useful than a normal mega despite being more expensive and longer to train into. T3C are supposed to be the highly adaptable generalists, T2 are the specialists, T1 are the base model, faction are the posh base model and pirate are the high quality supermodel. Having the generalists out preforming the specialists makes no sense.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18994	Posted - 2017.06.20 22:44:56 - [316] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship?
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 132	Posted - 2017.06.20 23:33:33 - [317] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship? i dont think its unfair to set some meta boudaries somewhere
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 78	Posted - 2017.06.21 00:57:33 - [318] - Quote baltec1 wrote: T3C are supposed to be the highly adaptable generalists, T2 are the specialists, T1 are the base model, faction are the posh base model and pirate are the high quality supermodel. This whole lineup is based on a rule that T3Cs always failed to follow, a rule which was made by the devs years ago. Yet during all of these years people were only complaining about T3Cs being stronger than the T2 cruisers. Am I really the first one who questions: what if the rule itself is the problem? Wouldn't it make more sense if you learn all T2 specialized cruisers to level 4 or 5, and only then would you unlock the T3Cs which can combine their roles? Tech 3 ships seem to play by their own rules anyways, why shouldn't we turn the strategic cruisers the endgame subcapital? Increase the skill requirements to need all of the skills of all roles the subsystems could provide, and at that point you have a legit reason to be better than the T2 versions. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Daichi Yamato Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass 3963	Posted - 2017.06.21 06:27:40 - [319] - Quote Because power creep is bad. A ship to end all ships just means everyone flies one ship. No meaningful choices is boring for a game and means noobs are less relevant until they can fly such ships. Doesn't matter how expensive you make it, or how much sp you need to unlock it it will eventually be flown en mass by richer older players who will curb stomp everyone all day except other groups using the same doctrine. Look at titans, which had to be given space aids to stop them stomping all over anyone who doesn't have fleets of them. Isk+sp does not and, never will, justify making something over powered. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Daichi Yamato Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass 3963	Posted - 2017.06.21 06:28:37 - [320] - Quote Matthias Ancaladron wrote: So are we all agreed? Delete t3s entirely from game yet? Yes? Great! Good job everyone, last one out of thread turn off lights. If only we could. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18994	Posted - 2017.06.21 07:36:16 - [321] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: baltec1 wrote: T3C are supposed to be the highly adaptable generalists, T2 are the specialists, T1 are the base model, faction are the posh base model and pirate are the high quality supermodel. This whole lineup is based on a rule that T3Cs always failed to follow, a rule which was made by the devs years ago. Yet during all of these years people were only complaining about T3Cs being stronger than the T2 cruisers. Am I really the first one who questions: what if the rule itself is the problem? Wouldn't it make more sense if you learn all T2 specialized cruisers to level 4 or 5, and only then would you unlock the T3Cs which can combine their roles? Tech 3 ships seem to play by their own rules anyways, why shouldn't we turn the strategic cruisers the endgame subcapital? Increase the skill requirements to need all of the skills of all roles the subsystems could provide, and at that point you have a legit reason to be better than the T2 versions. That just makes the T2 ships obsolete.
Alderson Point Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 104	Posted - 2017.06.21 08:20:27 - [322] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: baltec1 wrote: If no other cruiser can run these sites then why should t3c? Because these are not any other Cruisers, they are T3/higher end/more flexible/more powerful cruisers. T3C come with a hefty skill requiremant, will generally cost a good bit more and carry a significant penalty for losing it beyond just losing the ship. Seems to me that would call for some balance.. Instead it seems CCP and the pewew crowd in the game seem to prefer it to be 'just another cruiser' as they are unable to deal with it otherwise. baltec1 wrote: Why should the T3C which is supposed to be a generalist be as good or better than a specialised ship? First off, it appears you have never run these sites so you would not know what you are talking about. Second, there really is no alternative to the T3C to run these sites. There is nothing beyond an explo fit T3C that wil lgive me the bonusses on scanning/hacking and even the T3C is relatively slow for this purpose. Frankly, the rewards from these sites barely justify the investment of SP and ship/fit required Fozzie said they wanted to preserve the exploration role, it is quite clear from the latest information he either lied or has no clue about what is required to run these sites. Putting aside the "T3c vs HAC" discussion for the moment. If CCP wish, as I believe T3s to have the opportunity to continue as a Viable exploration ship, in the manner we can currently utilise them, the solution in this case would be to move the Virus strength and scan bonus to a ship bonus rather than the defensive subsystem bonus. The covert ops defensive subsystem, would still be valuable due to the significant value of the covert ops cloak, and this doesn't add too much to fits that do not use a covert ops cloak, and this will enable true exploration fits to still exist. Discuss.
Blazemonger Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 8	Posted - 2017.06.21 10:14:34 - [323] - Quote Alderson Point wrote: If CCP wish, as I believe T3s to have the opportunity to continue as a Viable exploration ship, in the manner we can currently utilize them,even though refitting may now be needed, the solution in this case would be to move the Virus strength and scan bonus to a ship bonus rather than the defensive subsystem bonus.this then allows an appropriate defensive fit, that can still hack challenging sites.. It would appear from previously mentioned documents that resists/tank will virtually be cut in half which will make these ship no longer viable to run high end exploration sites and the cost of getting unlucky is now losing a 1B ship and a skill level which in no way will validate running the sites which at best will yield 25-30% of the ship's value in loot. And another thing.. If the numbers in the docs pan out, it will not be possible to safely run Ghost sites anymore either. The tank will drop below that of a half decent Astero tank and I will want/need cloak to warp in to a Ghost site Which means no possibility to fit tank subsystems. What I predict will happen though is CCP will ignore all this and just nerf down the sites, making them more accessible which in turn makes them less valuable and explorers such as myself with 2-3 alts all trained and skilled to fly these T3C fits to lose any benefit form this. In fact unless this changes I will probably scrap these alts all together as I won't be able to use them anymore.. Not that I think CCP cares, as they cater to PVP and group/fleet based activity first and foremost, but it will mean a loss of Real world income for them. On early reports from the focus group I had hopes of this working out OK, currently I am pessimistic about the viability and continuation of a good bit of my income in game. If that happens all I can do is reconsider whether this game is still worth the investment.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 11:03:35 - [324] - Quote Blazemonger wrote: Alderson Point wrote: If CCP wish, as I believe T3s to have the opportunity to continue as a Viable exploration ship, in the manner we can currently utilize them,even though refitting may now be needed, the solution in this case would be to move the Virus strength and scan bonus to a ship bonus rather than the defensive subsystem bonus.this then allows an appropriate defensive fit, that can still hack challenging sites.. It would appear from previously mentioned documents that resists/tank will virtually be cut in half which will make these ship no longer viable to run high end exploration sites and the cost of getting unlucky is now losing a 1B ship and a skill level which in no way will validate running the sites which at best will yield 25-30% of the ship's value in loot. And another thing.. If the numbers in the docs pan out, it will not be possible to safely run Ghost sites anymore either. The tank will drop below that of a half decent Astero tank and I will want/need cloak to warp in to a Ghost site Which means no possibility to fit tank subsystems. And don't get me started on being forced to refit in space, being vulnerable for well over a minute. What I predict will happen though is CCP will ignore all this and just nerf down the sites, making them more accessible which in turn makes them less valuable and explorers such as myself with 2-3 alts all trained and skilled to fly these T3C fits to lose any benefit from this. In fact unless this changes I will probably scrap these alts alltogether as I won't be able to use them anymore.. Not that I think CCP cares, as they cater to PVP and group/fleet based activity first and foremost, but it will mean a loss of real world income for them. On early reports from the focus group I had hopes of this working out OK, currently I am pessimistic about the viability and continuation of a good bit of my income in game. If that happens all I can do is reconsider whether this game is still worth the investment. Good, this is supposed to be hard content.
Sterling Blades Windstalker Security Corp United Neopian Federation 34	Posted - 2017.06.21 11:35:49 - [325] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Blazemonger wrote: Alderson Point wrote: If CCP wish, as I believe T3s to have the opportunity to continue as a Viable exploration ship, in the manner we can currently utilize them,even though refitting may now be needed, the solution in this case would be to move the Virus strength and scan bonus to a ship bonus rather than the defensive subsystem bonus.this then allows an appropriate defensive fit, that can still hack challenging sites.. It would appear from previously mentioned documents that resists/tank will virtually be cut in half which will make these ship no longer viable to run high end exploration sites and the cost of getting unlucky is now losing a 1B ship and a skill level which in no way will validate running the sites which at best will yield 25-30% of the ship's value in loot. And another thing.. If the numbers in the docs pan out, it will not be possible to safely run Ghost sites anymore either. The tank will drop below that of a half decent Astero tank and I will want/need cloak to warp in to a Ghost site Which means no possibility to fit tank subsystems. And don't get me started on being forced to refit in space, being vulnerable for well over a minute. What I predict will happen though is CCP will ignore all this and just nerf down the sites, making them more accessible which in turn makes them less valuable and explorers such as myself with 2-3 alts all trained and skilled to fly these T3C fits to lose any benefit from this. In fact unless this changes I will probably scrap these alts alltogether as I won't be able to use them anymore.. Not that I think CCP cares, as they cater to PVP and group/fleet based activity first and foremost, but it will mean a loss of real world income for them. On early reports from the focus group I had hopes of this working out OK, currently I am pessimistic about the viability and continuation of a good bit of my income in game. If that happens all I can do is reconsider whether this game is still worth the investment. Good, this is supposed to be hard content. There is a difference between 'very likely to die,' and 'gauranteed to die.' You want it to be hard content? Good. It should be, but at the same time you're also saying that explorers shouldn't be able to survive the efforts if a cruiser can be outtanked by an Astero, which the individual before you mentioned it seems to be squaring up to become. I will wait to make a hard judgement until we see actual proposed number changes to actual raw health alongside the new resist profiles, but if it does become that a FRIGATE is the better option for endgame explo sites rather than a larger supposedly beefier vessel, then there is a problem. The gods are out there. They watch us. They guide, they manipulate. We rally behind the ones we adore, and rain fire against those who rally behind the ones we hate. The question now is, to whom does your allegiance fall behind, dear Empyreans?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 12:41:46 - [326] - Quote Sterling Blades wrote: There is a difference between 'very likely to die,' and 'gauranteed to die.' T3C are as likely to die doing these sites as a battleship in a level 4 mission in highsec. Sterling Blades wrote: You want it to be hard content? Good. It should be, but at the same time you're also saying that explorers shouldn't be able to survive the efforts if a cruiser can be outtanked by an Astero, which the individual before you mentioned it seems to be squaring up to become. I will wait to make a hard judgement until we see actual proposed number changes to actual raw health alongside the new resist profiles, but if it does become that a FRIGATE is the better option for endgame explo sites rather than a larger supposedly beefier vessel, then there is a problem. Again, a dedicated exploration ship should be better then a generalist cruiser at its specialised task. That frigate is better at explo sites than a titan.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 132	Posted - 2017.06.21 13:10:34 - [327] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship? im just asking how many hacs it takes to kill a rattlesnake also is there a reason they shouldnt be compared they are both ships
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 78	Posted - 2017.06.21 13:17:06 - [328] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Again, a dedicated exploration ship should be better then a generalist cruiser at its specialised task. That frigate is better at explo sites than a titan. Well, we don't have T2 exploration cruisers, so why shouldn't we let the T3Cs to be? This is most likely the only role that doesn't overlap with any T2 cruisers. Also, while the T2 explorer frigates are more fragile than the Astero, with level 4 cov-ops skill they actually have better probe bonuses. So there is no reason why we shouldn't make a T2 or in this case T3 cruiser that at some point becomes a better explorer than the Stratios. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 3621	Posted - 2017.06.21 13:42:27 - [329] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: how many hacs does it take to kill a rattlesnake Depends. Are you trying to compare a cruiser with a pirate battleship? im just asking how many hacs it takes to kill a rattlesnake also is there a reason they shouldnt be compared they are both ships If the ships are balanced correctly and intuitively it should take less HACs than T3. This though is not an issues with HACs because in the scope of cruisers they are fine, T3C are what are out of alignment with other cruisers. If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 14:30:53 - [330] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Well, we don't have T2 exploration cruisers, so why shouldn't we let the T3Cs to be? This is most likely the only role that doesn't overlap with any T2 cruisers. Because they are not specialist cruisers. Dior Ambraelle wrote: Also, while the T2 explorer frigates are more fragile than the Astero, with level 4 cov-ops skill they actually have better probe bonuses. So there is no reason why we shouldn't make a T2 or in this case T3 cruiser that at some point becomes a better explorer than the Stratios. They have better probe bonuses because they are specialised, T3C are not specialised, they are generalists. If you want a specialised exploration cruiser with powerful probe bonuses then ask for a new T2 exploration cruiser.

Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 81	Posted - 2017.06.21 14:46:24 - [331] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Well, we don't have T2 exploration cruisers, so why shouldn't we let the T3Cs to be? This is most likely the only role that doesn't overlap with any T2 cruisers. Because they are not specialist cruisers. Dior Ambraelle wrote: Also, while the T2 explorer frigates are more fragile than the Astero, with level 4 cov-ops skill they actually have better probe bonuses. So there is no reason why we shouldn't make a T2 or in this case T3 cruiser that at some point becomes a better explorer than the Stratios. They have better probe bonuses because they are specialised, T3C are not specialised, they are generalists. If you want a specialised exploration cruiser with powerful probe bonuses then ask for a new T2 exploration cruiser. It's not fun to argue with you if all you're doing is keep repeating the same thing over and over again, while ignoring all options and possibilities that would change these ships. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 15:49:56 - [332] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: It's not fun to argue with you if all you're doing is keep repeating the same thing over and over again, while ignoring all options and possibilities that would change these ships. I have to keep on repeating myself because you are ignoring fundamental parts of ship balance. Namely a generalist ship cannot be the best at any given task.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1266	Posted - 2017.06.21 15:55:12 - [333] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: It's not fun to argue with you if all you're doing is keep repeating the same thing over and over again, while ignoring all options and possibilities that would change these ships. I have to keep on repeating myself because you are ignoring fundamental parts of ship balance. Namely a generalist ship cannot be the best at any given task. quite.. besides the cloaky nullification combo T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 83	Posted - 2017.06.21 16:45:59 - [334] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: It's not fun to argue with you if all you're doing is keep repeating the same thing over and over again, while ignoring all options and possibilities that would change these ships. I have to keep on repeating myself because you are ignoring fundamental parts of ship balance. Namely a generalist ship cannot be the best at any given task. T3Ds can switch between modes to have better damage, better defense or better speed than the other destroyers. Do they count as generalist too? And if not being specialized makes you weaker, then Loki should actually need to dual tank to have a defense that you can call decent at least. Because having bonus to both armor and shield doesn't look specialized to me. Why not simply remove the whole "generalist" term from the rule book and simply say that the T3 ships are playing by their own rules? So T3Cs could become explorer ships with the ability to mimic the functions of other ships even if not so efficiently. Alternatively, Arazu, Falcon, Pilgrim and Rapier should lose their e-war abilities to become explorer cruisers instead. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 17:04:00 - [335] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: T3Ds can switch between modes to have better damage, better defense or better speed than the other destroyers. Do they count as generalist too? Supposed to, but they suffer from the exact same problems that have dogged the T3C. Namely that they were horrendously overpowered and still are compared to the other destroyers. Dior Ambraelle wrote: And if not being specialized makes you weaker, then Loki should actually need to dual tank to have a defense that you can call decent at least. Because having bonus to both armor and shield doesn't look specialized to me. If the loki is better than a recon at being a recon then it needs to be nerfed. Dior Ambraelle wrote: Why not simply remove the whole "generalist" term from the rule book and simply say that the T3 ships are playing by their own rules? So T3Cs could become explorer ships with the ability to mimic the functions of other ships even if not so efficiently. Alternatively, Arazu, Falcon, Pilgrim and Rapier should lose their e-war abilities to become explorer cruisers instead. Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 132	Posted - 2017.06.21 17:22:12 - [336] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years. maybe they used to years ago but not anymore meta changed a lot since those days
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 17:41:52 - [337] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years. maybe they used to years ago but not anymore meta changed a lot since those days Yea, its dominated by a handful of overpowered ships, this change goes a long way to fixing that.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.21 17:42:31 - [338] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Sterling Blades wrote: but if it does become that a FRIGATE is the better option for endgame explo sites rather than a larger supposedly beefier vessel, then there is a problem. Again, a dedicated exploration ship should be better then a generalist cruiser at its specialised task. That frigate is better at explo sites than a titan. You are twsting the argument to suit your needs here. You are trying to blanket the argument with basic and frankly non applicable comments. There currently is no high end exploration ship capabale of running the high end exploration sites with acceptable risk. The only ship able to do this is a T3C right now and post nerf that option seems to be gone. Many people have spends serious time and effort getting skilled in to these ships and the required fits which also carry a 1B pricetag. CCP is about to wipe out all that work and investment and apparently will not care one bit about this.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 17:49:01 - [339] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: You are twsting the argument to suit your needs here. You are trying to blanket the argument with basic and frankly non applicable comments. There currently is no high end exploration ship capabale of running the high end exploration sites with acceptable risk. The only ship able to do this is a T3C right now and post nerf that option seems to be gone. Many people have spends serious time and effort getting skilled in to these ships and the required fits which also carry a 1B pricetag. CCP is about to wipe out all that work and investment and apparently will not care one bit about this. They nerfed ships worth 120 billion out of anomaly ratting (tacking titan nerfs). Your easy ride is over, this content is going back to being difficult and hopefully that also means the supply of the high end gear out of these sites become more rare. You are going to have to adapt, just like everyone else that has had their golden goose nerfed.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 824	Posted - 2017.06.21 19:08:33 - [340] - Quote baltec1 wrote: BESTER bm wrote: You are twsting the argument to suit your needs here. You are trying to blanket the argument with basic and frankly non applicable comments. There currently is no high end exploration ship capabale of running the high end exploration sites with acceptable risk. The only ship able to do this is a T3C right now and post nerf that option seems to be gone. Many people have spends serious time and effort getting skilled in to these ships and the required fits which also carry a 1B pricetag. CCP is about to wipe out all that work and investment and apparently will not care one bit about this. They nerfed ships worth 120 billion out of anomaly ratting (tacking titan nerfs). Your easy ride is over, this content is going back to being difficult and hopefully that also means the supply of the high end gear out of these sites become more rare. You are going to have to adapt, just like everyone else that has had their golden goose nerfed. For the love of pod please stop teaching pvers how to do pve content. Nobody here teaching you how to fit your Mega. You don't even know what drops are from those sites. Sleeper sites are made to be high end content, I guess superior sites scaled to be done in BS hull. Guess what, nobody will do exploration in BS hull because they are non mobile after warp changes, and mobility is the number one for any explorer. Powerfull combo cloak+nulli should be nerfed but not by the cost of explorers. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.21 20:24:21 - [341] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: It's not fun to argue with you if all you're doing is keep repeating the same thing over and over again, while ignoring all options and possibilities that would change these ships. I have to keep on repeating myself because you are ignoring fundamental parts of ship balance. Namely a generalist ship cannot be the best at any given task. If you have to keep repeating yourself then one side or the other is wrong, since you're having everyone else in the thread come against you perhaps you should take a different look at your line of discussion. (That's as far down as I can tone this, would rather use much stronger language/points but don't want a forum ban.) I also challenge you to find a fully bonused T1 or T2 exploration cruiser (or larger!), faction and T3 will not count for you. The fact that there isn't one has been a glaring hole in the ship lineup for at least a decade. Therefore generalist does not apply to exploration. I would be fine with requiring HAC/Recon/Logi/Command ships as prereqs for training the strategic cruiser skills, makes no difference really. No matter the training bar people will do it anyway. The point though: Unchain exploration from cloak or buff the tank on the cloak subs to be on par for doing exploration regardless of cloak consideration. This is not a generalist ship class, it's a swiss army knife.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 20:34:36 - [342] - Quote Mhari Dson wrote: If you have to keep repeating yourself then one side or the other is wrong, since you're having everyone else in the thread come against you perhaps you should take a different look at your line of discussion. (That's as far down as I can tone this, would rather use much stronger language/points but don't want a forum ban.) Its more like a bunch of people don't want their overpowered toy nerfed. Mhari Dson wrote: I also challenge you to find a fully bonused T1 or T2 exploration cruiser (or larger!), faction and T3 will not count for you. The fact that there isn't one has been a glaring hole in the ship lineup for at least a decade. Therefore generalist does not apply to exploration. They very much do apply as these ships have more uses outside of exploration. If you want a dedicated t2 cruiser for exploration then ask for one. Mhari Dson wrote: I would be fine with requiring HAC/Recon/Logi/Command ships as prereqs for training the strategic cruiser skills, makes no difference really. No matter the training bar people will do it anyway. The point though: Unchain exploration from cloak or buff the tank on the cloak subs to be on par for doing exploration regardless of cloak consideration. This is not a generalist ship class, it's a swiss army knife. Swiss army knife is a generalist, it does everything but not as well as something dedicated. You cant have more tank on the cloaky T3C because that renders the recons obsolete.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 133	Posted - 2017.06.21 20:55:30 - [343] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years. maybe they used to years ago but not anymore meta changed a lot since those days Yea, its dominated by a handful of overpowered ships, this change goes a long way to fixing that. by removing even more ships from the meta and making the handful of ships worth flying even smaller id prefer to see things go the other way with more ships being viable rather than less that isnt power creep its equalization
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 824	Posted - 2017.06.21 21:01:25 - [344] - Quote baltec1 wrote: They very much do apply as these ships have more uses outside of exploration. If you want a dedicated t2 cruiser for exploration then ask for one. we already have dedicated faction cruiser that won't do superior sleeper site. You don't get one thing. It's reverse case carriers+anomalys. Carriers were buffed so players started to farm anomalies with them. CCP didn't predict that. Now they nerfed hulls via pve (sic!). Now it will be reverse. T3C will be nerfed and there is no hull that can replace them in content they are currently usable. If you think they will suddenly magically conjure T2 exploration hulls then you are wrong. Explorers asking for changing data sites content for years. ZERO response from CCP. Stale, unecessary sites, you may delete it, nobody will notice. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.21 21:01:58 - [345] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Mhari Dson wrote: If you have to keep repeating yourself then one side or the other is wrong, since you're having everyone else in the thread come against you perhaps you should take a different look at your line of discussion. (That's as far down as I can tone this, would rather use much stronger language/points but don't want a forum ban.) Its more like a bunch of people don't want their overpowered toy nerfed. Mhari Dson wrote: I also challenge you to find a fully bonused T1 or T2 exploration cruiser (or larger!), faction and T3 will not count for you. The fact that there isn't one has been a glaring hole in the ship lineup for at least a decade. Therefore generalist does not apply to exploration. They very much do apply as these ships have more uses outside of exploration. If you want a dedicated t2 cruiser for exploration then ask for one. Mhari Dson wrote: I would be fine with requiring HAC/Recon/Logi/Command ships as prereqs for training the strategic cruiser skills, makes no difference really. No matter the training bar people will do it anyway. The point though: Unchain exploration from cloak or buff the tank on the cloak subs to be on par for doing exploration regardless of cloak consideration. This is not a generalist ship class, it's a swiss army knife. Swiss army knife is a generalist, it does everything but not as well as something dedicated. You cant have more tank on the cloaky T3C because that renders the recons obsolete. We asked for T1/2 exploration ships six years ago but the devs devoted their time to whining nullbears, us explorers can't even get a typo corrected in less than FIVE YEARS.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 84	Posted - 2017.06.21 21:56:49 - [346] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You cant have more tank on the cloaky T3C because that renders the recons obsolete. This is an interesting point. Recons are e-war ships (for some reason) so making the cloak subsystem more tanky won't necessarily affect recons if the e-war subsystem is weaker. Unless you only use your recon ship to "recon" this is unlikely to happen. To be honest I never understood why do we have two almost redundant ships in a group called recon ships, while they barely have any bonuses that makes them worth of the name. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 22:05:58 - [347] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: baltec1 wrote: They very much do apply as these ships have more uses outside of exploration. If you want a dedicated t2 cruiser for exploration then ask for one. we already have dedicated faction cruiser that won't do superior sleeper site. You don't get one thing. It's reverse case carriers+anomalys. Carriers were buffed so players started to farm anomalies with them. CCP didn't predict that. Now they nerfed hulls via pve (sic!). Now it will be reverse. T3C will be nerfed and there is no hull that can replace them in content they are currently usable. If you think they will suddenly magically conjure T2 exploration hulls then you are wrong. Explorers asking for changing data sites content for years. ZERO response from CCP. Stale, unecessary sites, you may delete it, nobody will notice. Actually I imagine we will go back to people not running these things in a solo cruiser.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 22:06:57 - [348] - Quote JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years. maybe they used to years ago but not anymore meta changed a lot since those days Yea, its dominated by a handful of overpowered ships, this change goes a long way to fixing that. by removing even more ships from the meta and making the handful of ships worth flying even smaller id prefer to see things go the other way with more ships being viable rather than less that isnt power creep its equalization Buffing some 60+ ships to deal with 4 overpowered ships is very much power creep on a massive scale.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.21 22:15:16 - [349] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Your easy ride is over, this content is going back to being difficult and hopefully that also means the supply of the high end gear out of these sites become more rare. You are going to have to adapt, just like everyone else that has had their golden goose nerfed. Dude, you do not even know what you are talking about and quite clearly have never seen nor run any of these sites. At this point you are merely a cracked record spouting the same nonsense as you really have no argument here. CCP is about to kill off high en exploration as the only ship they have that will be able to run these sites will be nerfed to he point where it can't. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, whether it was intended or not, the T3C and especially the Tengu has become the Specialist Explo Cruiser. In part due to the salt and tears from gankers and campers unable to counter the ship (and not because it can't be done, just because they are not smart enough) and seeing the potential of picking up freebees off of other peoples work slip thorough their fingers time and time again. Fortunately there's alternatives on the horizon in the form of different MMO options.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 22:16:00 - [350] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: baltec1 wrote: You cant have more tank on the cloaky T3C because that renders the recons obsolete. This is an interesting point. Recons are e-war ships (for some reason) so making the cloak subsystem more tanky won't necessarily affect recons if the e-war subsystem is weaker. Unless you only use your recon ship to "recon" this is unlikely to happen. To be honest I never understood why do we have two almost redundant ships in a group called recon ships, while they barely have any bonuses that makes them worth of the name. If the T3C can fit a bigger tank while sporting cov ops and nullification then the recon lineup is rendered obsolete.

BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.21 22:20:21 - [351] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: I guess superior sites scaled to be done in BS hull. Guess what, nobody will do exploration in BS hull because they are non mobile after warp changes, and mobility is the number one for any explorer. Besides a BS hull not offering any extra support/protection in a Superior Sleeper, they indeed are simply to slow and lack the agility needed to run these sites. There is also no exploration bonus for BS.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18995	Posted - 2017.06.21 22:22:24 - [352] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: Dude, you do not even know what you are talking about and quite clearly have never seen nor run any of these sites. At this point you are merely a cracked record spouting the same nonsense as you really have no argument here. CCP is about to kill off high en exploration as the only ship they have that will be able to run these sites will be nerfed to he point where it can't. You mean the only ship than can run these sites virtually risk and effort free. Plenty of other ships can run them, it just requires more effort and means you cant nullify you way past anyone in the way as easily. BESTER bm wrote: Whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, whether it was intended or not, the T3C and especially the Tengu has become the Specialist Explo Cruiser. In part due to the salt and tears from gankers and campers unable to counter the ship (and not because it can't be done, just because they are not smart enough) and seeing the potential of picking up freebees off of other peoples work slip thorough their fingers time and time again. Fortunately there's alternatives on the horizon in the form of different MMO options. We did high end exploration before overpowered uncatchable nullified cov ops cruisers, people will continue to do them after the T3C gets nerfed into place.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.21 22:30:41 - [353] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Actually I imagine we will go back to people not running these things in a solo cruiser. That is what will likely happen yes. While I can fit and use a Tengu to run these sites with acceptable risk, where the risk mostly consists of me being careless or greedy, Fitting any available exploration ship to have a chance will become a huge risk even in case of getting unlucky on a hack and triggering a defense. Let alone I will no longer have the option to use the site defense to actually protect myself. Stratios is not even close to being able to run these sites and will need to leave at the first sign of an unlucky turn or mishap.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 84	Posted - 2017.06.21 22:45:00 - [354] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: I guess superior sites scaled to be done in BS hull. Guess what, nobody will do exploration in BS hull because they are non mobile after warp changes, and mobility is the number one for any explorer. Besides a BS hull not offering any extra support/protection in a Superior Sleeper, they indeed are simply to slow and lack the agility needed to run these sites. There is also no exploration bonus for BS. Well, we have the Nestor, but I wouldn't really use it for exploration, even if it's somewhat more agile than the average battleships. The lack of cloak bonus is really painful on that ship. Even if we don't get cov-ops cloak, can't we get a "no speed and probe strength reduction" bonus at least, instead of the barely useful remote rep? If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.21 23:03:02 - [355] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: BESTER bm wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: I guess superior sites scaled to be done in BS hull. Guess what, nobody will do exploration in BS hull because they are non mobile after warp changes, and mobility is the number one for any explorer. Besides a BS hull not offering any extra support/protection in a Superior Sleeper, they indeed are simply to slow and lack the agility needed to run these sites. There is also no exploration bonus for BS. Well, we have the Nestor, but I wouldn't really use it for exploration, even if it's somewhat more agile than the average battleships. The lack of cloak bonus is really painful on that ship. Even if we don't get cov-ops cloak, can't we get a "no speed and scan resolution reduction" bonus at least, instead of the barely useful remote rep? I tried to find a use for the Nestor, really I did, it's just a hangar decoration I need to get rid of.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.21 23:58:59 - [356] - Quote When it comes down to it this is what I expect of a good exploration ship: 1-2 utility highs (probes, salvager optional) 3 utility mids (relic/data/cargo scanner) 400-450 applied dps (HAM/HML apply so poorly the sheet dps for this is over 700) 500dps worth of tank spread across 3 resists Can take two 70K damage pulses in a short time and expect to survive 550m/s under AB, 1200m/s under mwd last one is a complaint.... Be able to put a legion through the same acceleration gate I can stuff a *&%%ing vulture. and that's just hisec.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.22 01:11:15 - [357] - Quote Mhari Dson wrote: When it comes down to it this is what I expect of a good exploration ship: 1-2 utility highs (probes, salvager optional) 3 utility mids (relic/data/cargo scanner) 400-450 applied dps (HAM/HML apply so poorly the sheet dps for this is over 700) 500dps worth of tank spread across 3 resists Can take two 70K damage pulses in a short time and expect to survive 550m/s under AB, 1200m/s under mwd Off Topic yes, but; Cargo scanners are a crutch.. knowing you just got unlucky on a 60M can as it blows is not worth it.. Separate Data/Relic is so last decade, we use Zeugma now.. :P ..
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.22 01:26:34 - [358] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: Mhari Dson wrote: When it comes down to it this is what I expect of a good exploration ship: 1-2 utility highs (probes, salvager optional) 3 utility mids (relic/data/cargo scanner) 400-450 applied dps (HAM/HML apply so poorly the sheet dps for this is over 700) 500dps worth of tank spread across 3 resists Can take two 70K damage pulses in a short time and expect to survive 550m/s under AB, 1200m/s under mwd Off Topic yes, but; Cargo scanners are a crutch.. knowing you just got unlucky on a 60M can as it blows is not worth it.. Separate Data/Relic is so last decade, we use Zeugma now.. :P .. sleeper sites need the virus strength and coherence, Zeugma isn't worth the price.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 84	Posted - 2017.06.22 01:27:04 - [359] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: Separate Data/Relic is so last decade, we use Zeugma now.. :P .. Combo scanners only had one utility slot the last time I checked, yellow and red hacks often need more. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.22 03:27:08 - [360] - Quote FYI SISI is up with the stats loaded in, the launcher can't seem to tell if it's there. Attempting login does work. And Thanks CCP Fozzie for getting that up for us, hope it didn't cut into your weekend too much.

JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 134	Posted - 2017.06.22 04:43:22 - [361] - Quote baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: JC Mieyli wrote: baltec1 wrote: Or we can fix the 4 ships that have been causing problems or outright invalidating some 60+ other ships for years. maybe they used to years ago but not anymore meta changed a lot since those days Yea, its dominated by a handful of overpowered ships, this change goes a long way to fixing that. by removing even more ships from the meta and making the handful of ships worth flying even smaller id prefer to see things go the other way with more ships being viable rather than less that isnt power creep its equalization Buffing some 60+ ships to deal with 4 overpowered ships is very much power creep on a massive scale. nah its only power creep when the ships are buffed beyond the power levels already existing a long time ago there was the tiericide then along came pirate bs and marauder that is power creep now all the other ships need to be balanced against pirate bs and marauder
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.22 05:26:46 - [362] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: BESTER bm wrote: Separate Data/Relic is so last decade, we use Zeugma now.. :P .. Combo scanners only had one utility slot the last time I checked, yellow and red hacks often need more. You use the board and no,I have never needed a second slot.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.22 05:36:13 - [363] - Quote So the ships are on SiSi.. Thread can be closed as for some time now this means CCP is done and the changes are locked in. Smart guys they are, the subsystems are not available so we can't start to see what can be saved from our investments and CCP won't have the 'burden' of being bombarded with negative comments. And they cut off the nose from the Tengu.. I mean seriously. But hey, as the ship is likely to be useless now, having it defaced is only a minor issue I guess.. Quick, throw a few skins in there too to see if we can make some money off of those before ppl discover they are basically screwed..
Feka Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation 7	Posted - 2017.06.22 05:38:15 - [364] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: That is what will likely happen yes. While I can fit and use a Tengu to run these sites with acceptable risk, where the risk mostly consists of me being careless or greedy, Fitting any available exploration ship to have a chance will become a huge risk even in case of getting unlucky on a hack and triggering a defense. Let alone I will no longer have the option to use the site defense to actually protect myself. Stratios is not even close to being able to run these sites and will need to leave at the first sign of an unlucky turn or mishap. High-end sites should be high risk. Never not post.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 827	Posted - 2017.06.22 05:45:22 - [365] - Quote Feka wrote: BESTER bm wrote: That is what will likely happen yes. While I can fit and use a Tengu to run these sites with acceptable risk, where the risk mostly consists of me being careless or greedy, Fitting any available exploration ship to have a chance will become a huge risk even in case of getting unlucky on a hack and triggering a defense. Let alone I will no longer have the option to use the site defense to actually protect myself. Stratios is not even close to being able to run these sites and will need to leave at the first sign of an unlucky turn or mishap. High-end sites should be high risk. sure, but we need a viable hull to even start doing them. Merging analyzers bonus into covert cloak sub leave us no choice. We can't do them because of weak tank and we can't drop covert sub because of analyzers bonuses. Maybe move analzyers bonus into hull like probes fitting bonus? Nestor is not an option and exploration is solo activity. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.22 06:11:43 - [366] - Quote So, tried building a suitable fit on SiSi but it's not possible. Waste of skills and investment in a couple of ships soon to be worthless to me. Probably unsub two accounts and will be interesting to see how CCP is going to compensate for them moving the goalpost beyond where I can adjust. Probably CCP won't care either way though..
Feka Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation 7	Posted - 2017.06.22 07:02:00 - [367] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: sure, but we need a viable hull to even start doing them. Merging analyzers bonus into covert cloak sub leave us no choice. We can't do them because of weak tank and we can't drop covert sub because of analyzers bonuses. Maybe move analzyers bonus into hull like probes fitting bonus? Nestor is not an option and exploration is solo activity. Why should it be solo on all difficulty levels? Never not post.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 827	Posted - 2017.06.22 07:42:53 - [368] - Quote Feka wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: sure, but we need a viable hull to even start doing them. Merging analyzers bonus into covert cloak sub leave us no choice. We can't do them because of weak tank and we can't drop covert sub because of analyzers bonuses. Maybe move analzyers bonus into hull like probes fitting bonus? Nestor is not an option and exploration is solo activity. Why should it be solo on all difficulty levels? Because those are rare so it's unpredictable when they'll spawn. Not to mention there is no such thing as group exploration. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Feka Magellanic Itg Goonswarm Federation 7	Posted - 2017.06.22 08:11:12 - [369] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Because those are rare so it's unpredictable when they'll spawn. Not to mention there is no such thing as group exploration. Yet. Never not post.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.22 08:13:25 - [370] - Quote Feka wrote: Why should it be solo on all difficulty levels? Sleeper caches are solo sites, they are not designed to be run in teams and it would be pointless/make no difference if you do. Please know what you are commenting on before you do so.

Nareyan De'ath The Void Cartel 0	Posted - 2017.06.22 09:32:25 - [371] - Quote What horrifies me is that my once sleek disolution sequenced/Ab sub tengu now has been reshaped as the ecm/cloaky/nullified mismatched monstrosity...
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 84	Posted - 2017.06.22 11:12:54 - [372] - Quote The good news is we still have the hammerhead Proteus, and the drone subsystem finally has a drone bay. I thought the current electronics will become the core, the defense stays as it is, offensive and engineering subsystems will be merged or replaced and propulsion also stays. I also hoped that we may vote on which visuals should be kept or dropped. I guess we have to deal with the fact that nothing is good enough for us. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.22 11:47:42 - [373] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: I guess we have to deal with the fact that nothing is good enough for us. That's not the issue here.. CCP has been fumbling and releasing half baked updates and patches for a while now. Most of what they do is not finished at release and it appears devs are pulled off and on to the next nerf/'improvement'/redesign instead of fleshing things out. The fact that legacy code does hinder optimisations and performance improvements as well as coming competition (!) is not a good sign for CCP. Will be an interesting EVE Vegas (and I would not be surprised it to be the last CCP organised one), especially with DU on the laptop..
Sterling Blades Windstalker Security Corp United Neopian Federation 35	Posted - 2017.06.22 13:52:46 - [374] - Quote Time for me to voice my first real complaint after fiddling a bit with the subsystems and Loki that I already had over on the test server. Why in the name of the gods above and below would you apply the old model for the Loki's emergent locus analyzer subsystem to the new immobility driver subsystem? Why not make it become the enhanced nuclear reactor model? Or even have it be the new look for the disolution sequencer? Pardon me just venting steam and hoping that these visual changes will be worked out a bit more. I'm whining over something ultimately inconsequential, but I wish that the old locus analyzer model would be on something I'd fit to my ship more often if these end up being the final design choices. The gods are out there. They watch us. They guide, they manipulate. We rally behind the ones we adore, and rain fire against those who rally behind the ones we hate. The question now is, to whom does your allegiance fall behind, dear Empyreans?
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 828	Posted - 2017.06.22 13:54:19 - [375] - Quote Tried Tengu on SiSi. It's worse than Stratios currently, far worse. No point of using it as exploration vessel at current state. For data/relics site in null ceptor exploration will be better and cheaper. For anything less - Stratios. I really don't care how much high slots I have on it. Tank is laughable, not enough utility slots, stupid amount of useless highslots ( for cloaky hunters sure, but othewise meh). It that is generalisation then good luck - useless overpriced hull. CCP has good idea to release them in summer when ppl are on vacations, s***storm will hit with far less damage. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
caldari MJ Inner Hell 10	Posted - 2017.06.22 14:19:42 - [376] - Quote SO what results of last changes (last year) with wh: 1) wh pvp - DEAD 2) wh pve - mostly DEAD 3) wh industry - will DEAD (we already see falling of t3 orders on market) Armor t3 fleet againist null-sec carriers/supers was killed. Why we need fight on ****-tanked-fitted t3 with lose skill-point againist null sec. Wh-industry will be killed after this patch. Now we see drop of t3 market. We have nothing left to sit on talos/nagas and make trash pvp. Best regards to incompetent ccp and focus group.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 87	Posted - 2017.06.22 15:26:27 - [377] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Where is iconic Tengu beak? The current obfuscation manifold? I always thought it looks dumb. And this is exactly why we were supposed to vote! Not a big deal really, show the pictures of the current art labeled with letters, then ask people to order them from favorite to least favorite. The one that most people dislikes gets dropped. Personally I'm more interested in the Proteus: why keep the capacitor regeneration matrix instead of the power core multiplier? If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 828	Posted - 2017.06.22 16:00:28 - [378] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Where is iconic Tengu beak? The current obfuscation manifold? I always thought it looks dumb. And this is exactly why we were supposed to vote! Not a big deal really, show the pictures of the current art labeled with letters, then ask people to order them from favorite to least favorite. The one that most people dislikes gets dropped. Personally I'm more interested in the Proteus: why keep the capacitor regeneration matrix instead of the power core multiplier? I don't like visual changes at all. The look should be decided by a player flying T3C not by arbitrary subsystem bonus. It would make sense from a hull personalization perspective. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 87	Posted - 2017.06.22 16:10:45 - [379] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Jeremiah Saken wrote: Where is iconic Tengu beak? The current obfuscation manifold? I always thought it looks dumb. And this is exactly why we were supposed to vote! Not a big deal really, show the pictures of the current art labeled with letters, then ask people to order them from favorite to least favorite. The one that most people dislikes gets dropped. Personally I'm more interested in the Proteus: why keep the capacitor regeneration matrix instead of the power core multiplier? I don't like visual changes at all. The look should be decided by a player flying T3C not by arbitrary subsystem bonus. It would make sense from a hull personalization perspective. It works like this because you have the right to know what ship the other player is flying. In any other cases you can see both on d-scan and on the overview the name of the ship, so you immediately know what you're against. But the name "Tengu" currently covers 1024 ships. You need to actually look at it to predict the possible abilities of the ship. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 1247	Posted - 2017.06.22 16:21:47 - [380] - Quote Just dropping in on account of curiosity, but how will the T3C's be handled from a visual standpoint? Since we're going to a 4-category system from a 5-category one, will they look the same as they do now or will they be visually reworked given that would essentially mean part of the cruiser hulls would be literally missing? "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.22 16:33:02 - [381] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Edit: Visuals are bull**** btw. Where is iconic Tengu beak? This very much yes! It's a shame and so bad I have actually decided to with immediate effect stop using the Tengu and ignore any sites that may require it. I am extracting the skills and selling the ships now that hey are still worth something. I also am biomassing two toons alltogether as they have no more use for me since they were specifically trained and used to run Sleeper caches sold to me. If this means I need to further reduce my game accounts I will as I am at the point I will not spend any RL money to plex accounts. The ship is just nerfed to the point it's not good for anything but pewpew and even then it's lackluster and has virtually no reason for existing anymore. A mentioned, it's now worse than the Stratios.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 23	Posted - 2017.06.22 16:36:30 - [382] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: will they look the same as they do now or will they be visually reworked given that would essentially mean part of the cruiser hulls would be literally missing? They will be reworkede to make it easier to apply skins which you can buy for plex only initially. It's all about the benjamins..
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 87	Posted - 2017.06.22 18:01:22 - [383] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: I guess we have to deal with the fact that nothing is good enough for us. That's not the issue here.. CCP has been fumbling and releasing half baked updates and patches for a while now. Most of what they do is not finished at release and it appears devs are pulled off and on to the next nerf/'improvement'/redesign instead of fleshing things out. The problem is that you seem to be correct. The citadel transition had a plan to replace the POS functions during a longer period. The tactical destroyers - ships that by function and mechanics are much more simple - took a year of conversation before testing it on SISI to fix. But trying to fix the strategic cruisers in about 2 months? Even if they started earlier without the focus group, this time is really short. CCP seems to be... desperate here. "Quickly do something! Anything!" Personally I would like to know how many drafts were about the subsystems before they announced it on the last event. They clearly take suggestion from the forums, like the separate cargo hold for subsystems for example. So why is this whole rework so rushed? If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 1247	Posted - 2017.06.22 18:06:46 - [384] - Quote Not quite what I asked. I was asking about how will T3C's look since they would visually loose one of the subsystems' making up one-fifth of the hull, not whether they will be compatible with SKINs. I'll rephrase. If the engineering and electronics subs are being combined into so-called core subs, how will that be handled considering those sub groups account for two separate sections of the hulls? Will changing the core sub change those same two sections? Will one of them be permanent regardless of what subs are mounted? Or does CCP plan to rebuild their looks to only have four visual segments rather than five like they do now. Don't really care that much about making them work with SKINs. It would be nice, but that's not what I was concerned with. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Moksa Elodie Hijo de la Luna 26	Posted - 2017.06.22 19:16:46 - [385] - Quote It has taken so many years to get to a T3 rebalance and it feels like the devs suddenly thought one day "OMG we forgot about rebalancing T3s, quick lets do it in a few weeks before Seagull finds out." I spent a short time looking at Proteus and Loki configurations and it is a mess. I feel the defensive subs should have PWG & CPU added, remove the subs giving the PWG & CPU and turn them into something useful. With the Proteus I had issues with PWG even when using an 800m plate alongside the friction extension sub and with the Loki using a shield setup I had 500 PWG spare and 8 CPU after filling all slots except 1 utility high slot. Slot layouts need looking at again and normalizing, so many high slots ...? ( just condense the turrets down 4 and bring sub bonuses up). As for mid & low slots have a base of 5 & 5, with adjustments altering from that like +1 mid -1 low depending on what the ship has as an intended tank, etc. Having this affected by tank and core, not propulsion (because it should be a given that a ship will be fitted with a prop mod), would mean a more balanced slot layout with a maximum of 7/3 or 3/7. As for the cloaking sub getting an extra high slot, just use the utility slot for the cloak. 6 fixed high slots(-1 for drone subs because you like to do that for whatever reason), 4 for turrets/launchers/RR with 2 utility. Finally, the whole ship appearance fudgery, I think the focus group must really hate themselves to think that the sub appearances which have been proposed was a good idea.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 88	Posted - 2017.06.22 19:40:43 - [386] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: Not quite what I asked. I was asking about how will T3C's look since they would visually loose one of the subsystems' making up one-fifth of the hull, not whether they will be compatible with SKINs. I'll rephrase. If the engineering and electronics subs are being combined into so-called core subs, how will that be handled considering those sub groups account for two separate sections of the hulls? Will changing the core sub change those same two sections? Will one of them be permanent regardless of what subs are mounted? Or does CCP plan to rebuild their looks to only have four visual segments rather than five like they do now. Don't really care that much about making them work with SKINs. It would be nice, but that's not what I was concerned with. What I can see on SISI currently, the electronics and defense are merged to be the core, and the engineering becomes the new defense. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 1247	Posted - 2017.06.22 20:09:54 - [387] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: What I can see on SISI currently, the electronics and defense are merged to be the core, and the engineering becomes the new defense. Gotcha...thanks. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Dom Arkaral The Conference Elite CODE. 1626	Posted - 2017.06.23 01:31:12 - [388] - Quote So, did some fiddling on SiSi, Bonuses don't apply correctly (or at all) It was probably mentionned already, but I'm a tad too lazy to read through 20 pages Other than that, I'm very excited to see how it will change the current meta all over the place p.s. really loving the loki so far Tear Gatherer. Quebecker. Has no Honer. Salt Harvester. Broadcast 4 Reps -- YOU ARE NOT ALONE, EVER Instigator of the First ISD Thunderdome CCL Loyalist
Thomas Lot Astrocomical Warped Intentions 152	Posted - 2017.06.23 02:06:37 - [389] - Quote So a Cloaky T3C will still be able to pass a 30-ship insta-lock gate camp untouched, drop a covert cyno, cloak back up, and laugh at how over-powered the mechanic still is. Pathetic.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 828	Posted - 2017.06.23 06:06:02 - [390] - Quote Thomas Lot wrote: So a Cloaky T3C will still be able to pass a 30-ship insta-lock gate camp untouched, drop a covert cyno, cloak back up, and laugh at how over-powered the mechanic still is. Pathetic. No they won't. They align like carriers. Mergin analyzers bonus into covert sub was a mistake. Now we get same combo (covert+nulification) for two types of ships, recons and exploration hulls. They can't buff the tank here because it will cause overpowered recons but current tank is not sufficient for exploration needs. Slots layouts are mess, tried to fit a loki and proteus for non combat exploration, there just simply not enough mids. Creating pure exploration T2 is futile because we already have faction Stratios that is no go. Not to mention Nestor which is viable only for WHs repping and exploration bonuses are just SoE ships line flavour. I think approach to slots distribution is another mistake, there should be strict slot layout changed by subsystem roles (-1 here, +1 there if necessary). Otherwise balancing this will be a nightmare. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 89	Posted - 2017.06.23 09:59:51 - [391] - Quote Recon ships are weird. They also seem to be a combination of two roles: electronic attack combined with half of an exploration equipment. Currently Stratios is the only cruiser sized explorer. T1 explorer cruisers should have similar bonuses as the frigates, while being lighter and having a larger cargo hold than the average cruiser. These should be upgraded to recon ships with probe bonuses, one should get the cov-ops cloak and analyzers, the other the d-scan immunity with enough d-scan range bonus to see the whole system. While the e-war cruisers should become heavy e-war cruisers where the primary abilities (target painting, sensor dampening, weapon disruption and ECM) are expanded by the secondary abilities (web, warp disruption, capacitor warfare and middle finger because Caldari has only one method). By the way did anyone see what Chance Ravine was doing on SISI? 1000 DPS cloaky active shield cap-stable Tengu doesn't seem OP to anyone else? If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1266	Posted - 2017.06.23 10:59:53 - [392] - Quote that vid.. some crazy dps on those cloaky nullified covert T3 cruisers.. very OP ... the dps needs too drop on these ships, battleship dps on any fit especially the covert sub is just stupid ... covert as a defensive sub seems a bad move, you can't have them doing battleship dps in a covert config ... on the proteus the 3 midslots is just silly especially with a mid based e-war sub. maybe consider dropping the amount of highslots on all these cruisers too reduce the dps and knock off 1 damage bonus on each weapon based sub.. especially the tengu.. maybe a hull tanked sub for proteus might be worth exploring.. also gets around the bad pg they seem too have. T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2268	Posted - 2017.06.23 11:37:14 - [393] - Quote The tank on the covert options are garbage unless you fit a passive tank and to me, this alone indicates that the design choice behind this is flawed. So if CCP are going to stick with that, the DPS absolutely needs to be high! Don't forget that you are in a mush squishier ship that when you die in, you lose skill points. Every ship needs to excel at on thing, otherwise people will always choose the the better alternative... And no. Flexibility isn't a compelling enough feature because you can't apply that flexibility on the battlefield. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1266	Posted - 2017.06.23 11:50:06 - [394] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: The tank on the covert options are garbage unless you fit a passive tank and to me, this alone indicates that the design choice behind this is flawed. So if CCP are going to stick with that, the DPS absolutely needs to be high! Don't forget that you are in a mush squishier ship that when you die in, you lose skill points. Every ship needs to excel at on thing, otherwise people will always choose the the better alternative... And no. Flexibility isn't a compelling enough feature because you can't apply that flexibility on the battlefield. the command/logi or even e-war + etc... begs too differ.. very useful in small gang pvp when have limited pilots so 1 ship doing 2 jobs can be a big deal... also that cap stable shield boosting 1k dps tengu has enough tank. T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
FT Cold Mouth Trumpet Cavalry. Mouth Trumpet Cavalry 109	Posted - 2017.06.23 13:29:32 - [395] - Quote Tengu is extremely deficient in power grid. 540 powergrid after fitting skills is far, far too low.
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2268	Posted - 2017.06.23 15:10:39 - [396] - Quote I have been messing around with the cloaky proteus fits and it seem under-powered in comparison to the tengu... The tengu gets great DPS at great range while the proteus gets ok dps at close range only. Armour vs shield tank is also uneven when you use ancillary reps, not only in power but in cap dependency. Harvey James wrote: the command/logi or even e-war + etc... begs too differ.. very useful in small gang pvp when have limited pilots so 1 ship doing 2 jobs can be a big deal... also that cap stable shield boosting 1k dps tengu has enough tank. I was talking about the flexibility the modular design of T3 supposedly offer, not the ability to do two jobs as that is not changing, fundamentally. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2268	Posted - 2017.06.23 15:58:11 - [397] - Quote I don't know if this idea has been suggested but T3C should work as follows... The cruisers should be able to be refit without the use of a mobile depot (or similar) not under a combat timer. Saved fittings should be able to be instantly applied while in space providing there is not combat/weapons timer. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 1247	Posted - 2017.06.23 17:01:09 - [398] - Quote FT Cold wrote: Tengu is extremely deficient in power grid. 540 powergrid after fitting skills is far, far too low. If I heard it right, the primary offensive subs on the Tengu (Accelerated Ejection Bay and Magnetic Fusion Basin) get fitting bonuses to reduce fitting costs for weapons, cutting CPU and PG costs for them down to 75%. Many of the subs also add to PG. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
MrGTout Hucel-Ge Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.06.23 17:43:07 - [399] - Quote "Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening Caldari Defensive Systems bonuses per skill level: 5% bonus to shield hitpoints 5% bonus to the benefits of overhearing shield hardeners Additional Stats: +2M, +2L +1000 Shields +10m Signature Radius Tengu Defensive - Amplification Node Caldari Defensive Systems bonuses per skill level: 10% bonus to shield booster effectiveness 10% bonus to the benefits of overhearing shield boosters Additional Stats: +3M, +1L +500 Shields, +100 Armor +300 Capacitor Capacity" For some reason, Supplemental Screening have 1 more L and 1 less M compare to Amplification Node, isn't that backward? I don't see the point of having more M slot for active tank
Moksa Elodie Hijo de la Luna 26	Posted - 2017.06.23 17:56:53 - [400] - Quote MrGTout Hucel-Ge wrote: I don't see the point of having more M slot for active tank I believe it is for a cap booster/battery

MrGTout Hucel-Ge Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2017.06.24 00:33:36 - [401] - Quote Moksa Elodie wrote: MrGTout Hucel-Ge wrote: I don't see the point of having more M slot for active tank I believe it is for a cap booster/battery One more M slot and one less L slot does not help anything, a lot of tengu active tank fit work with 6 or 7 M. Move a slot from L to M instead will decreases the dps. But one more M slot for passive tank means one more shield extender or one more shied hardener, which is way more helpful And beside that, to be honest, new tengu can fit up to 8 mid slot, it is ridiculous for a cruiser, even rook and falcon only have 7 mid, am I flying a titan or a super carrier?
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.24 02:26:55 - [402] - Quote Aside from the logistics/link improvements, I think this has to be the worst piece of development work I've had to look at since I began playing. Was hoping to get back to using these after a multi-year wait but they'll stay in the mothball dock, maybe next rebalance something will happen.
Moksa Elodie Hijo de la Luna 26	Posted - 2017.06.24 12:29:10 - [403] - Quote MrGTout Hucel-Ge wrote: One more M slot and one less L slot does not help anything, a lot of tengu active tank fit work with 6 or 7 M. Move a slot from L to M instead will decreases the dps. But one more M slot for passive tank means one more shield extender or one more shied hardener, which is way more helpful I had an idea for slot layouts in relation to subsystems and made a set of slot stats for each T3 ( it is more complicated than you think). So from that experience of attempting to thinking like a "ship balancer"; I can guess that for a passive shield sub the +1 L is for the possibility of passive regen low slot module. For the active tank subsystems, you don't necessarily need an extra low slot for cap assistance ( although there are low slot modules which can be used). So, having an extra mid slot for a cap booster/battery/recharger makes sense. I am solely talking about individual subsystem stats not the effects of a full set of subsystems. I agree with you about the messed up number of slots, they are why I had the idea for making an alternative slot stats.
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 134	Posted - 2017.06.24 13:04:12 - [404] - Quote simple solution give t3cs a siege module make t3cs the marauders of the cruiser class
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 134	Posted - 2017.06.24 16:00:06 - [405] - Quote also earlier in the thread when i asked how many hacs it takes to kill a rattlesnake that was a trick question a rattlesnake cant be beaten by cruisers not even with support of 3-5 excqurors
JC Mieyli Ministry of War Amarr Empire 134	Posted - 2017.06.24 18:11:25 - [406] - Quote nothing
WhiteOrm Outer Space Random Corp 1	Posted - 2017.06.25 01:35:53 - [407] - Quote I know that you probably have given it a deep thought, but Loki with 5-2 high slots is not going to go far =/ Every time you do something like that we have another underpowered ship with spare non bonused slots fitted with energy neutralizers, rapid missile launchers etc that are placed there not because they are going to be essential in this fit, but because there is nothing to fit there. And then you say that it is Minmatarr versatility. 6-6 with total 6 high slots - that is versatile. Why not make Tengu versatile also? I bet lots of players will appreciate if it gets nice pair of railguns (without bonuses) and 5 missile launchers. If it really happened we probably woudn't have seen end of it. It is good and all that you have decided to rebalance subsystem because some of them are almost never used, but you could also look at some ships, ask yourself why they are almost never used and at least do not add more to them. (Give us 6 turrets or 6 launchers please.)
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.25 02:32:34 - [408] - Quote WhiteOrm wrote: I know that you probably have given it a deep thought, but Loki with 5-2 high slots is not going to go far =/ Every time you do something like that we have another underpowered ship with spare non bonused slots fitted with energy neutralizers, rapid missile launchers etc that are placed there not because they are going to be essential in this fit, but because there is nothing to fit there. And then you say that it is Minmatarr versatility. 6-6 with total 6 high slots - that is versatile. Why not make Tengu versatile also? I bet lots of players will appreciate if it gets nice pair of railguns (without bonuses) and 5 missile launchers. If it really happened we probably woudn't have seen end of it. It is good and all that you have decided to rebalance subsystem because some of them are almost never used, but you could also look at some ships, ask yourself why they are almost never used and at least do not add more to them. (Give us 6 turrets or 6 launchers please.) One of those spare highslots is one that did not exsist in previous builds. It's supposedly a concession to us explorers (probe launcher) but the state of the post nerf ships is such that they're a worse alternative at a higher cost than the underperforming stratios.
WhiteOrm Outer Space Random Corp 1	Posted - 2017.06.25 09:17:56 - [409] - Quote Mhari Dson wrote: One of those spare highslots is one that did not exsist in previous builds. It's supposedly a concession to us explorers (probe launcher) but the state of the post nerf ships is such that they're a worse alternative at a higher cost than the underperforming stratios. The problem with this spare high slot is that covert subsystem gives you +1H and thus you get 3 non-bonused slots, which are sort of too many for exploration. You probably could use it to fit Covert Cyno or just Cyno in addition to cloak and probe launcher if ship wasn't squishy (and expensive) as it is in that configuration. No matter how you look at it, it is 1 H that does nothing, and 1 turret/missile point that is missing.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 89	Posted - 2017.06.25 10:49:53 - [410] - Quote WhiteOrm wrote: I know that you probably have given it a deep thought, but Loki with 5-2 high slots is not going to go far =/ Every time you do something like that we have another underpowered ship with spare non bonused slots fitted with energy neutralizers, rapid missile launchers etc that are placed there not because they are going to be essential in this fit, but because there is nothing to fit there. And then you say that it is Minmatarr versatility. 6-6 with total 6 high slots - that is versatile. Why not make Tengu versatile also? I bet lots of players will appreciate if it gets nice pair of railguns (without bonuses) and 5 missile launchers. If it really happened we probably woudn't have seen end of it. It is good and all that you have decided to rebalance subsystem because some of them are almost never used, but you could also look at some ships, ask yourself why they are almost never used and at least do not add more to them. (Give us 6 turrets or 6 launchers please.) I'll just write this too on my "why Minmatar as a faction is a mess" list. Seriously, way too many of their ships have this weird setup, where they get both turret and launcher hard points, but not enough to make a full fit, while only one weapon type gets bonus. Mhari Dson wrote: Reading over everything and thinking it over, exploration should be removed from these ships and given it's own. Make us a T1 and a T2 racial, with a very rare T3 (seed the T3 and it's parts into sleeper caches instead of WH space). I think we should keep their ability to be explorers, but I can agree with this idea. Personally, this is how I would distribute the subsystems: defensive #1 - cov-ops cloak with a still "decent" tank, but either no other bonuses, or make them able to use local rep and nanite paste while they are cloaked. I think this ability would be quite unique. Also, no high slot for the cloak. #2 - buffer tank, level-based bonus to raw HP and/or armor plate (Legion and Proteus) and shield extender (Tengu and Loki) bonus. This subsystem would have the lowest resistances (even T1 profile maybe?), but really good choice both for non-cloaky explorers and polarized weapon fits. #3 - racial defenses, increasing armor resistances for Legion, armor rep effectiveness for Proteus, shield resistances for for Tengu and shield booster effectiveness for Loki. * No dual-tanking shenanigans! core #1 - sensors and e-war, this is a combat oriented system. 2 mid slots except for Legion, who gets 1 mid and 1 high slot. #2 - scanner probe and analyzers. Exploration equipment bonuses, 2 mid slots for everyone. You may get 1 high slot if you ask nicely. #3 - PG and CPU bonus, for some reason this seems like a really important bonus, instead of making the fitting abilities of these ships static. This allows you to fit more/easier, but no other benefits. Maybe the cap warfare resistance. 1 mid and 1 low slot. offensive #1, #2 and #3 - 6 high, 1 mid and 2 low slots for everyone, 6 turret or launcher hard points, except the drone and logi systems, they only get 4. propulsion Honestly, I don't really know. Also, all configurations should have at least 4 mid and low slots and 6-7 defense slots based on the defensive subsystems mostly. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Blazemonger Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 8	Posted - 2017.06.25 18:51:43 - [411] - Quote If it was up to me: 1. Offensive Weapons ECM / ewar Covert OPS 2. Defensive Tank ECCM Remote rep 3. Core Probe and Hack PG/CPU [have to think of this one] 4. Propulsion Nullification Speed subwarp and agility Warpspeed But the table has been set on this really, there's no chance IMO that anything will change from what is on SiSi now.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.25 22:06:52 - [412] - Quote Blazemonger wrote: If it was up to me: 1. Offensive Weapons ECM / ewar Covert OPS 2. Defensive Tank ECCM Remote rep 3. Core Probe and Hack PG/CPU [have to think of this one] 4. Propulsion Nullification Speed subwarp and agility Warpspeed But the table has been set on this really, there's no chance IMO that anything will change from what is on SiSi now. And the focus group can't seem to discuss anything but fleet comps. wtf Fozzie?
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 24	Posted - 2017.06.25 22:32:49 - [413] - Quote I am pretty sure the focus group never got a say in the subsystems and that they were already in place with at best room for tweaks. The FC is a marketing trick by CCP to be able to buffer the fallout and to make it appear 'we' have a say. Fozzie lives in his own little world and is provided 'input and ffedback' by a specific segment of EVE playerbase and from within CCP. I also feel his job is not to balance but more to make sure EVE meta and gameplay moves in a predefined desired direction more than anything else.. Then the FC consists mainly of gang/group[/fleet based players so it would make sense their 'input and advise' would center around that. It's also quite obvious this was by design as to not contaminate the CCP desired doctine which goes against solo actiuvity as ageneral rule and promotes destruction to drive PLEX injection as bottom line. Anyone notice how CCP disabled hostfitting for T3C on SiSi a day or to after they updated the T3C there.. People quickly found the BS in the CCP mantra and story by making serious OP fits as long as you are going for DPS .
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 89	Posted - 2017.06.25 23:22:16 - [414] - Quote Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play (and preferably pay too) ? If this is a true sandbox game then there should be no intended way to play it. You can be a solo PVE player in a PVP MMO if you want. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
BESTER bm Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 24	Posted - 2017.06.25 23:30:47 - [415] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this.
Chris Winter Winters Are Coming 647	Posted - 2017.06.26 05:05:54 - [416] - Quote Just hopped on the test server to take a look at some of the Tengu subs. It seems that logi t3s are being nerfed into the ground? For example, on the Tengu currently on the live server, the Adaptive Shielding sub gives a 10% per level bonus to the strength of medium remote shield boosters. This bonus has vanished on the test server, and instead it gets a bonus to overheating remote shield boosters. This means that even a dedicated Tengu logi (not even accounting for one that might want to split between logi and command boosts) will be rather less effective than they are now, and will likely not be a viable logi option... Is this intentional or an oversight?
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.26 09:01:38 - [417] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this. The current promoted meta takes a huge dump on anyone not in large scale pvp, totally ignoring the fact null can't pay all the bills.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 89	Posted - 2017.06.26 16:25:53 - [418] - Quote Mhari Dson wrote: BESTER bm wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this. The current promoted meta takes a huge dump on anyone not in large scale pvp, totally ignoring the fact null can't pay all the bills. This only could make sense if EVE wouldn't have a closed, in-game economy. Making PVE harder than it should be can lead to PVE players leaving the game. This would mean two things: no more ISK generated by incursions and missions, and no more fancy faction module drops from DED site runners. This means that the game will consume all of it's money in about a year, and suddenly the best equipment you can get would be T2 and the stuff you can buy from faction warfare LP stores. Making solo play harder than it should be can lead to people interested in exploration leaving the game - the same people who usually avoid PVP because their cargo is worth a hundred times more than their ship. This also reduces the number of fancy blueprints and even T3 components. Solo play and PVE are important because they produce the supplies that group PVP needs. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 128	Posted - 2017.06.26 16:43:10 - [419] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Mhari Dson wrote: BESTER bm wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this. The current promoted meta takes a huge dump on anyone not in large scale pvp, totally ignoring the fact null can't pay all the bills. This only could make sense if EVE wouldn't have a closed, in-game economy. Making PVE harder than it should be can lead to PVE players leaving the game. This would mean two things: no more ISK generated by incursions and missions, and no more fancy faction module drops from DED site runners. This means that the game will consume all of it's money in about a year, and suddenly the best equipment you can get would be T2 and the stuff you can buy from faction warfare LP stores. Making solo play harder than it should be can lead to people interested in exploration leaving the game - the same people who usually avoid PVP because their cargo is worth a hundred times more than their ship. This also reduces the number of fancy blueprints and even T3 components. Solo play and PVE are important because they produce the supplies that group PVP needs. Every summer since I started doing exploration (2009) it gets ridiculously hard to find sites during the afternoon/evening. This summer I'm finding stuff no matter the time and on top of that I've seen no new competition this year.
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 516	Posted - 2017.06.26 22:51:32 - [420] - Quote BESTER bm wrote: Dior Ambraelle wrote: Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this. I don't think that's entirely fair. There are play styles that get wrecked with updated (for instance, the warp speed changes killed my love of battleships). However, in the focus group CCP is trying to accommodate a lot of play styles. I think it's inevitable that someone's going to get boned but they're trying to minimize it. I watched Chance's video - I'm putting together fits now. I 1k dps /1.5-18k tank cloaky tengu seems poweful (although obv not in groups). FYI, I've been on vacation a week. I'm still reading through (and sometimes skipping) a lot of text.

Secretariot Eto Angur Management 3	Posted - 2017.06.26 23:04:54 - [421] - Quote T3Cs are receiving a long awaited nerf. I think we all need to get over that fact and realize they won't have the best damage/tank/ewar/agility combined anymore. Btw, they still deal a ridiculous amount of damage for cruiser hull.
Daichi Yamato Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass 3968	Posted - 2017.06.27 00:09:01 - [422] - Quote They still have a ridiculous amount of damage and tank. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 129	Posted - 2017.06.27 00:39:58 - [423] - Quote Secretariot Eto wrote: T3Cs are receiving a long awaited nerf. I think we all need to get over that fact and realize they won't have the best damage/tank/ewar/agility combined anymore. Btw, they still deal a ridiculous amount of damage for cruiser hull. What they're getting is a halfassed rush job that isn't producing the results needed.
Secretariot Eto Angur Management 3	Posted - 2017.06.27 03:15:01 - [424] - Quote Daichi Yamato wrote: They still have a ridiculous amount of damage and tank. Completely agree. I see so many comments about tank isn't good enough, not enough PG/CPU, slot layout not right... etc. Welcome to fitting every other ship in the game.
Lina Miaoke The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 119	Posted - 2017.06.27 04:13:45 - [425] - Quote Whatever you do, please do not take away the mini Avatar look away from Exploring Legion. :( The current Dissolution Sequencer look fugly, Nos/Neut Legion can have that look for all I care.
Blazemonger Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 8	Posted - 2017.06.27 07:12:43 - [426] - Quote Secretariot Eto wrote: T3Cs are receiving a long awaited nerf. I think we all need to get over that fact and realize they won't have the best damage/tank/ewar/agility combined anymore. Btw, they still deal a ridiculous amount of damage for cruiser hull. The nerf is ineffective as it only truly affects those areas for which no alternative exists in other ships. On top of that the changes actually buff DPS from what we see. So it would appear the changes actually result in exactly what was not supposed to happen. You can build a cloaky monster DPS platform that can sneak up undetected and unleash, but you can't create an explorer which can take the considerable damage in some of the higher end sites while at the same time be able to cloak as a purely defensive action unless you bring two different cloaks and refit in space leaving you vulnerable with a very expensive ship where you will also run the risk of losing SP. It's a rush job indeed and actually it looks like it was mostly ready to go with the focus group put in place to provide the 'community rubber stamp' to what Fozzie&co thought up..
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 92	Posted - 2017.06.27 09:15:06 - [427] - Quote Blazemonger wrote: Secretariot Eto wrote: T3Cs are receiving a long awaited nerf. I think we all need to get over that fact and realize they won't have the best damage/tank/ewar/agility combined anymore. Btw, they still deal a ridiculous amount of damage for cruiser hull. The nerf is ineffective as it only truly affects those areas for which no alternative exists in other ships. On top of that the changes actually buff DPS from what we see. So it would appear the changes actually result in exactly what was not supposed to happen. You can build a cloaky monster DPS platform that can sneak up undetected and unleash, but you can't create an explorer which can take the considerable damage in some of the higher end sites while at the same time be able to cloak as a purely defensive action unless you bring two different cloaks and refit in space leaving you vulnerable with a very expensive ship where you will also run the risk of losing SP. It's a rush job indeed and actually it looks like it was mostly ready to go with the focus group put in place to provide the 'community rubber stamp' to what Fozzie&co thought up.. It's kind of interesting that this "nerf" will result ships that are easier to kill, but also easier to be killed by them. This only makes sense for hunters, as they don't want a real fight, they depend on high dps and alpha damage as I understand. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Ben Ishikela 93	Posted - 2017.06.27 12:45:00 - [428] - Quote I logged in to SISI and installed the SISIpyfa. ghost fitting seemed to be not working 2days ago. SISIpyfa shows good numbers on the ships. Seems like covertnullified T3Cs do not need to refit for running complexes which is very nice. The fastalign&isntawarp Hunter T3C does not work anymore. Which is nice. It was Overpowered and Boring anyway. It was also raising the minimal radius a blue sov donut must have to at least 3 systems. With those changes, there might be more ratting opportunity for independent guys, a little less need for blues and therefor more fights. Which is nice. Good Job CCP! TLDR rip huntertengu we will remember. Ideas are like Seeds. I'd chop fullgrown trees to start a fire.
Tyrant's Bane Honor's Lost Cause 12	Posted - 2017.06.27 20:38:38 - [429] - Quote Well, After 4 years I have decided to come back and one of the first things I notice is the discussion on upcoming changes to T3 cruisers. I really like the proposed changes and am looking forward to them. Any idea on when this patch is supposed to launch?
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2269	Posted - 2017.06.27 22:52:03 - [430] - Quote @Focus group, am I reading right that Fozzie has moved the warp speed bonus to the nullification subsystem? Why was it removed from the non-nullified sub? This removes the ability for a T3 to travel fast. The wishlist is pretty much complete...

Lelob Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 250	Posted - 2017.06.28 03:18:28 - [431] - Quote 6 gun legion still has 200k+ dps with beams with great range with 600 dps with a sig under 200m that perma-runs on cap....this is very, very broken STILL. Please continue nerfing the legion as I have no desire to see years and years more of t3 cruisers being the only ships people fly.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 129	Posted - 2017.06.28 03:55:43 - [432] - Quote Tyrant's Bane wrote: Well, After 4 years I have decided to come back and one of the first things I notice is the discussion on upcoming changes to T3 cruisers. I really like the proposed changes and am looking forward to them. Any idea on when this patch is supposed to launch? July 12th is the planned release, though if they have any sense they'll work on it longer.
Matsu Fumiko Know your Role League of Unaligned Master Pilots 2161	Posted - 2017.06.28 07:01:02 - [433] - Quote Mhari Dson wrote: July 12th is the planned release, though if they have any sense they'll work on it longer. Just a reminder: we are talking about CCP Teilnahme ab 18! Glücksspiel kann süchtig machen! www.spielen-mit-verantwortung.de
Blazemonger Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 8	Posted - 2017.06.28 09:23:58 - [434] - Quote Reading the focus group logs there's definitely some changes still being made, good to see some of the more concerning issues being discussed and addressed (from what it seems). Still not entirely happy about the need to refit in space between travel and running sites in NS.. One of the suggestions seen here that I miss in the discussion on the FC is the option to allow T3C to refit without the need for a Mobile depot. There may be technical reasons which prevent this, but it would make things a lot more smooth. I'd understand this would induce a timer where the ship is immobilized due to re-calibration or whatever you want to make the reason. It would however offer some 'protection' when on DScan only the ship is visible and not a MD as well (kind of gives away the refit). Overall I do feel it is disappointing that offensive application of the T3C seems to be hardly affected by the changes while Defensive options such as needed for exploration are hit hard. Especially with no real alternatives outside of T3C being available.
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 516	Posted - 2017.06.28 16:13:27 - [435] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: @Focus group, am I reading right that Fozzie has moved the warp speed bonus to the nullification subsystem? Why was it removed from the non-nullified sub? This removes the ability for a T3 to travel fast. The logs linked in the first page show the reasoning. But there's a lot of discussion still around this. Essentially it's a tip to the nullified subs agility sucking.
Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2269	Posted - 2017.06.28 16:48:55 - [436] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: Rek Seven wrote: @Focus group, am I reading right that Fozzie has moved the warp speed bonus to the nullification subsystem? Why was it removed from the non-nullified sub? This removes the ability for a T3 to travel fast. The logs linked in the first page show the reasoning. But there's a lot of discussion still around this. Essentially it's a tip to the nullified subs agility sucking. I understand that the warp bonus is being added to the nullification sub because there were concerned that the align time penalty associated with that sub would kill hunter killer gameplay in null sec... What i do not understand is why the warp speed bonus had to be removed from the chassis optimisation subsystem, at the same time? This completely removes the ability for T3s to travel quickly across multiple systems. Currently on TQ the bonus to warp speed is too weak, so that sub hardly ever got used. With the re-balance it should have been buffed to something like 15% per level to make it a useful bonus... but instead it's just going to be removed? The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2017.06.28 18:52:53 - [437] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: Noxisia Arkana wrote: Rek Seven wrote: @Focus group, am I reading right that Fozzie has moved the warp speed bonus to the nullification subsystem? Why was it removed from the non-nullified sub? This removes the ability for a T3 to travel fast. The logs linked in the first page show the reasoning. But there's a lot of discussion still around this. Essentially it's a tip to the nullified subs agility sucking. I understand that the warp bonus is being added to the nullification sub because there were concerned that the align time penalty associated with that sub would kill hunter killer gameplay in null sec... What i do not understand is why the warp speed bonus had to be removed from the chassis optimisation subsystem, at the same time? This completely removes the ability for T3s to travel quickly across multiple systems. Currently on TQ the bonus to warp speed is too weak, so that sub hardly ever got used. With the re-balance it should have been buffed to something like 15% per level to make it a useful bonus... but instead it's just going to be removed? Unfortunately we can't mix and match bonuses and trade-offs as we would like. For example giving more points to defense and exploration and less to offense (similar to this completely unrelated image just to give a visual illustration, I'm really not really good when I need to explain things) - subsystems are not good for this, even if it could work better in some cases, and skills could give more points to distribute. Multiple subsystems of the same ship giving redundant bonuses feels kind of uncreative and lazy. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
Mhari Dson Lazy Brothers Inc 129	Posted - 2017.06.28 21:53:17 - [438] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Rek Seven wrote: Noxisia Arkana wrote: Rek Seven wrote: @Focus group, am I reading right that Fozzie has moved the warp speed bonus to the nullification subsystem? Why was it removed from the non-nullified sub? This removes the ability for a T3 to travel fast. The logs linked in the first page show the reasoning. But there's a lot of discussion still around this. Essentially it's a tip to the nullified subs agility sucking. I understand that the warp bonus is being added to the nullification sub because there were concerned that the align time penalty associated with that sub would kill hunter killer gameplay in null sec... What i do not understand is why the warp speed bonus had to be removed from the chassis optimisation subsystem, at the same time? This completely removes the ability for T3s to travel quickly across multiple systems. Currently on TQ the bonus to warp speed is too weak, so that sub hardly ever got used. With the re-balance it should have been buffed to something like 15% per level to make it a useful bonus... but instead it's just going to be removed? Unfortunately we can't mix and match bonuses and trade-offs as we would like. For example giving more points to defense and exploration and less to offense (similar to this completely unrelated image just to give a visual illustration, I'm really not really good when I need to explain things) - subsystems are not good for this, even if it could work better in some cases, and skills could give more points to distribute. Multiple subsystems of the same ship giving redundant bonuses feels kind of uncreative and lazy. Unimaginitive and uncreative has ruled this abbreviated process, frankly the biggest waste of my time to follow since the RML threadnaught. I had hoped to get back to using these ships as I did enjoy flying them before the content lockout in HS. With the min/max leaning towards overheat always and the cold stats getting shoved steadily closer to the toilet, I don't think this will do anything meaningful, unless of course you live in null. And where is the industry info?
Val Mech New April Moon 6	Posted - 2017.06.29 11:50:38 - [439] - Quote Hello All! I want to pay my 5 cents. In current WiP meta I cant reproduce 2 mostly popular pve Proteus fits: [Proteus, PVE Rails] Corpum C-Type Medium Armor Repairer Reactive Armor Hardener Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating Dark Blood Energized Explosive Membrane Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Gistum C-Type 50MN Microwarpdrive Tracking Computer II Republic Fleet Large Cap Battery 250mm Railgun II 250mm Railgun II 250mm Railgun II 250mm Railgun II 250mm Railgun II 250mm Railgun II Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I Medium Nanobot Accelerator II Proteus Offensive - Hybrid Propulsion Armature Proteus Defensive - Nanobot Injector Proteus Engineering - Power Core Multiplier Proteus Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Proteus Propulsion - Localized Injectors Hornet II x5 Vespa II x5 and [Proteus, PVE Rails+Drones] Corpum B-Type Medium Armor Repairer Coreli A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating Dark Blood Energized Explosive Membrane Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Drone Damage Amplifier II Gistum C-Type 10MN Afterburner Tracking Computer II Republic Fleet Large Cap Battery 250mm Railgun II 250mm Railgun II 250mm Railgun II 250mm Railgun II 250mm Railgun II Auto Targeting System II Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II Medium Nanobot Accelerator II Proteus Offensive - Hybrid Propulsion Armature Proteus Defensive - Nanobot Injector Proteus Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Proteus Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer Proteus Propulsion - Localized Injectors Gecko x1 Hornet II x3 Vespa II x1 Current WiP Nanobot sub give +1M +1L against Plating sub +2L. -1 low slot for active armor tanking sub? Are you seriously?! Why, CCP? WHYYYY???!!! And secondly, I cant reproduce very popular pve Incursion HQ Loki fit: [Loki, HQ LFAF] Damage Control II Corelum C-Type Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Imperial Navy 800mm Steel Plates Republic Fleet Gyrostabilizer Republic Fleet Gyrostabilizer Republic Fleet Gyrostabilizer Gistum C-Type 10MN Afterburner Tracking Computer II Federation Navy Stasis Webifier Federation Navy Stasis Webifier 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 720mm Howitzer Artillery II 720mm Howitzer Artillery II Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I Medium Anti-Kinetic Pump I Medium Projectile Burst Aerator II Loki Offensive - Projectile Scoping Array Loki Defensive - Adaptive Augmenter Loki Engineering - Power Core Multiplier Loki Electronics - Immobility Drivers Loki Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst Acolyte II x5 If you dont make changes, then you will destroy a huge sphere of pve GÇïGÇïgameplay on T3Cs. Devs, what you think about this?
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2017.06.29 17:24:38 - [440] - Quote Blazemonger wrote: One of the suggestions seen here that I miss in the discussion on the FC is the option to allow T3C to refit without the need for a Mobile depot. There may be technical reasons which prevent this, but it would make things a lot more smooth. I'd understand this would induce a timer where the ship is immobilized due to re-calibration or whatever you want to make the reason. It would however offer some 'protection' when on DScan only the ship is visible and not a MD as well (kind of gives away the refit). Making them able to refit on their own would give them a huge advantage over everyone else. There should be serious limitations for this. For example: - the cooldown time of the self-fit mode is 1 hour (at least) that may or may not can be modified by T3C related skills - while in self-fit mode, the ships shouldn't be able to move, dock or activate any modules, and I think the level-based bonuses shouldn't apply either - after a short setup time (10 seconds maybe) the self-fit mode is unlimited, but you can't exit (which also takes 10 seconds) it if your fit is invalid - having modules in non-existing slots, having modules fit that the new subsystems don't allow, having too many or the wrong kind of weapons etc... The only way of doing this is making the ship a too easy target while it's in refit mode, so a mobile depot would be much safer, rendering the self-fitting ability almost worthless. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Rek Seven Art Of Explosions 2269	Posted - 2017.06.29 21:06:03 - [441] - Quote Nah the only limitation would need to be that you can't activate it while you have a combat timer. @ CCP & focus group - Glad to see that the warp speed bonus is being kept on the proteus chassis optimisation sub. However, don't you think it is a bit weak? The warp bonus is a great idea but Ithink it needs to be at least a 15% per level bonus to make it worth riging/implanting for. The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Blazemonger Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 10	Posted - 2017.06.30 10:43:10 - [442] - Quote Dior Ambraelle wrote: Blazemonger wrote: One of the suggestions seen here that I miss in the discussion on the FC is the option to allow T3C to refit without the need for a Mobile depot. Making them able to refit on their own would give them a huge advantage over everyone else. There should be serious limitations for this. . I do not agree on this being a huge advantage. the nerf will in many cases where a refit would (now) be needed be a penalty compensated by this option IMO. That there needs to be a balance is obvious but I think these should be sufficient: Use of this option will have a cooldown of 30 minutes before it can be used again Immobility for 30 seconds post refit (call it recalibration or whatever) Not possible while on (aggression) timer
DeadDuck The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 211	Posted - 2017.06.30 13:41:35 - [443] - Quote SP losses remained... So besides losing a ship that will cost probably around 500m if not more, I will need to pay additionally 1,5 b Isks to recover a SP loss or wait around 5 days training again the same skill... Good move CCP. Guess I will pass again. 2B to fly a ship in small gangs is not worth it. Tec3 were good for hotdrops or the blob warfare. Guess they will continue to be good for that but not for my kind of play. Another nail in the coffin I guess...
Pflepsen Conquering Darkness 16	Posted - 2017.06.30 19:17:08 - [444] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone! If you've read the previous thread asking for applications or our recent dev blog you'll know that we have spun up another community focus group to help refine plans for a Strategic Cruiser rebalance this summer. We almost have the whole group in the channel now and we're starting in earnest. The basic outline of our goals and early plans can be found in the balance presentation from Fanfest as well as the dev blog. We'll be using this thread as a location for general community discussion and Q&A as we go through this process. Anyone can observe the logs of the discussion in the focus group slack through https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/ We'll also link other working documents in this thread as we go forward so the whole community can take a look. Thanks!
Pflepsen Conquering Darkness 16	Posted - 2017.06.30 19:21:39 - [445] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone! If you've read the previous thread asking for applications or our recent dev blog you'll know that we have spun up another community focus group to help refine plans for a Strategic Cruiser rebalance this summer. We almost have the whole group in the channel now and we're starting in earnest. The basic outline of our goals and early plans can be found in the balance presentation from Fanfest as well as the dev blog. We'll be using this thread as a location for general community discussion and Q&A as we go through this process. Anyone can observe the logs of the discussion in the focus group slack through https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/ We'll also link other working documents in this thread as we go forward so the whole community can take a look. Thanks! Every single fit for T3 cruisers need a choice of active or passive tank! just because some F1 monkey cant deal with it you have to remove it?
Pflepsen Conquering Darkness 16	Posted - 2017.06.30 19:31:53 - [446] - Quote Pflepsen wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Hey everyone! If you've read the previous thread asking for applications or our recent dev blog you'll know that we have spun up another community focus group to help refine plans for a Strategic Cruiser rebalance this summer. We almost have the whole group in the channel now and we're starting in earnest. The basic outline of our goals and early plans can be found in the balance presentation from Fanfest as well as the dev blog. We'll be using this thread as a location for general community discussion and Q&A as we go through this process. Anyone can observe the logs of the discussion in the focus group slack through https://focusgrouplogs.tech.ccp.is/ We'll also link other working documents in this thread as we go forward so the whole community can take a look. Thanks! Every single fit for T3 cruisers need a choice of active or passive tank! just because some F1 monkey cant deal with it you have to remove it? The T3 cruisers ARE for Wormhole space! Not for some F1 monkey to shoot red houses! Cloaky, probing, nullified, PASSIVE TANK!!!
Nexus Omni Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 0	Posted - 2017.07.01 00:30:26 - [447] - Quote I am voiceing my distress over the visual changes to t3c mostly toward the tengu. It at the moment appear you guys have chosen to make the pvp setup tengu a collection of the worset looking subsystems. For one i dont understand why you need to change the visuals. Secoundly why have you chosen to keep the uglest looking subsystems over getting rid of them. The tengu offensive system visual for coverops was the only one that didnt fit with the caldari down ward slopeing design. the 100mn PVP wh PVE fit i currently use is still viably with the new bonuse and subsystem layout but currently on the test server this set up makes the tengu look the uglyest it can be, This maybe a petty complaint to some of you but visuals and gfx are a big thing these days to get people intrested in a game, If you make the most popular layouts the worst looking layouts it depresses people and makes them less intrested. I understand the ships are being balanced and we are exspecting to see more covert ops set ups but again i dont understand why you have chosen to make the non cloaky pve set up the unglest thing ive ever seen rather then getting rig of the uglyest missmatched sub systems, Pleese tell me they are just place holders and what we see visualy right not is just a place holder. I realy dont want to be flying a ship i cant bear to look at. CCP have so far done a good job in remodeling some of the older designed ships but this seems like a giat leap backwards,,,, what gives? If players don't find the game asteticly pleaseing they are more likely to go ealse where for there ezscapeisum and relaxation. I personally have never flown a buffer tengu so the blance to me is just a huge bufff to the cloaky tengu, it would have been nice to see the visuals kept the same and mabye an improvement on the looks rather then a buff to an underused set up and a slap with an ugly stick to the most used. If the changes on sisi are correct visualy i realy am starting to loose intrest.
Jeremiah Saken The Fall of Leviathan 829	Posted - 2017.07.01 14:12:21 - [448] - Quote Fozzie asking for feedback with visuals when there are already SKINs for them on SiSi. Legit as f***. "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Uriam Khanid New Machinarium Corporation 88	Posted - 2017.07.01 17:03:33 - [449] - Quote visialy T3C sucks! very sucks!!! especially Loki !!! SKINs are OK.
Dior Ambraelle University of Caille Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2017.07.01 17:31:25 - [450] - Quote Jeremiah Saken wrote: Fozzie asking for feedback with visuals when there are already SKINs for them on SiSi. Legit as f***. Those are probably test skins, they are using the basic ship pattern masks like the old skins. If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it! But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Gleb Koskov Hedion University Amarr Empire 16	Posted - 2017.07.01 22:11:58 - [451] - Quote Any chance we are going to be able to see Tech 3 cruisers able to enter 3/10 plexes again in the future?
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 1250	Posted - 2017.07.02 02:03:39 - [452] - Quote So is there any way for those of us not part of the focus group to see what's being decided? I've been looking at some gdocs linked on an earlier page, but keep hearing new changes not shown on them. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Blazemonger Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group 10	Posted - 2017.07.02 05:10:22 - [453] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: So is there any way for those of us not part of the focus group to see what's being decided? I've been looking at some gdocs linked on an earlier page, but keep hearing new changes not shown on them. Try the link to the FG loogs on the first post
Mina Sebiestar Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate 1216	Posted - 2017.07.02 06:30:05 - [454] - Quote Concerning Loki visuals Example Please consider keeping missile subsystem as is in example above to me at least it redistribute mass a lot better it offset heavy ship front with slim middle and again somewhat exaggerated back so ship avoid looking like toothpick and generally unappealing and weakish. Missile hard points look really amazing on it, as well as it reminds me of some kind of ballast tanks and since space ship submarines nothing further need to be said it only need to be respected. Lastly but "worstly" both tank subs should have that slick combat ready look to it like augmented durability have nothing sticks out all is tucked and behind armor plates so that tumor of a sub ie camel hump move that sub from adaptive defence to covert reconfiguration because it needs more space for advanced equipment and ....whatever just remove it from tank subs. Even better delete it from all servers and logs last remaining data copy of it toss in nuclear testing area nuke it for 5 years hard that if any atom of it remained launch it to sun and than when it gets there destroy the sun just to be sure. You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear Because >>I is too hard
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1267	Posted - 2017.07.02 09:20:57 - [455] - Quote still not seeing any mention about the dps being OP still in the slack group especially on the cloaky HK versions.. there just obsessed with tank T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 1250	Posted - 2017.07.02 17:43:11 - [456] - Quote Blazemonger wrote: Sobaan Tali wrote: So is there any way for those of us not part of the focus group to see what's being decided? I've been looking at some gdocs linked on an earlier page, but keep hearing new changes not shown on them. Try the link to the FG loogs on the first post I did, and it's not that useful. I appreciate the offer, but I'm not really into the idea of sifting through a mountain of broken convo logs that so far have hardly any concrete data mentioned. By the time I have a clear enough picture of what's going on, it'll be on TQ at that rate. There's still a number of recent changes mention here that are not even discussed in those logs. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Pflepsen Conquering Darkness 16	Posted - 2017.07.03 12:36:00 - [457] - Quote Cypherous wrote: The discussion is looking good so far, i just want to make sure the exploration voice is heard loud and clear, while cloaky nullified T3's are a pain for PvP they are important for explorers, i'm open for penalties that would affect PvP while having those subs fitted, for instance a scan res penalty like you get for fitting stabs etc I just don't want the PvP pains to end up making these ships unviable for exploration Too stupid to figure out how to counter anything! F1 monkey!

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 14977	Posted - 2017.07.03 14:03:01 - [458] - Quote Hey folks, we've moved this discussion thread over to the new forums. The new version of the thread has the most recent version of all the stats and bonus plus information on industry, I highly advise checking it out. I'll lock this thread now and direct all discussion over to the new forums. Game Designer \| Team Five-0 Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.