[00:45] <max_kolonko> @nync: someone does, for sure
[00:46] <max_kolonko> They removed drones from all dreads to remove their ability of killing small tackle abd force them to have support fleet for that
[00:59] <nync> thx for history lesson cap
[03:13] <scott_ormands> fresh from SISI
[03:13] <scott_ormands> http://puu.sh/mDvbI/8fa0d1662c.jpg
[07:43] <max_kolonko> @ccp_larrikin: sooo, judging from above screen ccp is reversing the skill tiericude? Whats with one ship suddenly requiring specialisation from other ships? Remember when you guys removed assault frigate requirments from hac, hac/recon from cs, etc? You wanted t2 skills to be independent specialisation. T2 cruuse logi dont require t2 frig logi. Hac dont require af, recon dont require covert ops, etc...
[07:49] <max_kolonko> Or is it just placeholder?
[07:54] <max_kolonko> Wow i have it for so long that i forgot triage module require logi v (now logi cruise)
[07:55] <max_kolonko> So it kind of made sense with faux since you cant use it without triage
[07:57] <max_kolonko> Still i think triage and or faux reliance on other ship specialisation skill is bad, but since its been that way for ages no harm in maintaining status quo
[09:39] <sebastien_st.frusquin> Speaking of which
[09:39] <sebastien_st.frusquin> can we nuke the jump drive calibration skill entirely ?
[09:40] <sebastien_st.frusquin> with the ridiculously short range we have today, that skill is a joke
[09:40] <sebastien_st.frusquin> it's JDC5 or gtfo
[09:44] <sebastien_st.frusquin> I mean, I get it that some people at CCP have been doing their best to make people not train and use capitals, but you didn't need to be that blatant about it
[09:45] <sebastien_st.frusquin> "Hey I finally trained for a capital (or a black ops), can I join that fleet ?"
[09:45] <sebastien_st.frusquin> "Do you have JDC5 ?"
[09:45] <sebastien_st.frusquin> "uh no ?"
[09:45] <sebastien_st.frusquin> "Get out"
[09:47] <sebastien_st.frusquin> remove the JDC skill (SP refunded), all ships get +100% to their jump range so everyone gets JDC5
[10:06] <xttz> They could just set all jump ranges to the current max and let JDC alleviate fatigue in some fashion
[10:06] <xttz> that way it's more of a benefit to an individual rather than actively excluding them from fleets
[10:36] <sebastien_st.frusquin> that's an idea
[12:06] <5pitf1re> that’s not a bad idea
[12:07] <5pitf1re> in the end it would lead to JDC5 or gtfo as well because the JDC4 guy would delay fleet movement
[12:08] <5pitf1re> but I’m all for a little less fatigue
[12:59] <xttz> In practice I doubt it would make much difference. Let's say if JDC acted as a modifier on jump range like the current role bonuses for blops/industrials, at 5% per level.... so at JDC4 it's an 80% bonus and JDC5 is 75%
[12:59] <xttz> it would only amount to an extra few minutes fatigue and few seconds cooldown difference between the two
[15:18] <nync> @sebastien_st.frusquin: i agree on jdc . we can have a set range on all caps and jdc will give 5% range re level, which will make worth training
[15:30] <5pitf1re> that is literally the same situation we have now but instead of 25% per level you went to 5% per level
[15:31] <5pitf1re> unless I miss understood your idea
[15:32] <5pitf1re> a sneaky attempt to increase current jump range by 25% :stuck_out_tongue:
[15:40] <capqu> hes saying make it a choice to train
[15:40] <capqu> instead of a neccesity
[15:41] <capqu> or maybe hes talking about making it affect distance jumped re: fatigue calculation
[15:42] <5pitf1re> well, it would not change the status quo
[15:42] <5pitf1re> fatigue calculation yes
[15:42] <5pitf1re> range no
[15:42] <capqu> sure but currently if u wanna fly a crapital u have to have jdcal 5
[15:42] <capqu> or u aint a crapital
[15:43] <capqu> which is fairly stupid
[15:43] <5pitf1re> indeed
[15:43] <capqu> so standardizing the range to whatever jdc 5 is now and changing jdc to change the fatigue calculation
[15:43] <capqu> would be cool
[15:43] <capqu> make jdc 4 current fatigue situation maybe
[15:43] <capqu> jdc 5 10% better or w/e
[15:43] <5pitf1re> yea, agreed
[16:02] <rocket_x> @rocket_x pinned a message to this channel.
[16:02] <rocket_x> [January 20th, 2016 10:04 PM] capqu: i need a gf
[16:03] <rocket_x> :smile:
[16:39] <tinkerhell> https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie/status/690205264843313152
[16:39] <tinkerhell> So...does that mean we know dreads dps and ehp soon? :stuck_out_tongue:
[16:40] <tinkerhell> also i thought dmg mitigation would of made tons of those dreads worthless?
[16:41] <xttz> They said you'd need around 30 dreads to hit the mitigation cap on an XL
[16:41] <5pitf1re> I'm sure they wanted to test how hard the citadel can hit
[16:43] <5pitf1re> 41 to 26 sounds like quite a carnage, almost like a Cephei Keks dread OP
[16:43] <5pitf1re> ayyyy
[16:43] <5pitf1re> hai Cephei
[16:53] <scott_ormands> yeah probably expected casualties and brought extra to stay at max dps
[16:57] <rocket_x> chaos dumps showing shield/armor/struc hp of dreads dropping by 40-45%\d
[16:57] <scott_ormands> althoug requiring those kinds of numbers in wh's could make all but nova or polaris style eviction impossible
[16:57] <rocket_x> pretty much in line with our own balancing suggestions
[16:58] <tinkerhell> I thought the dog mitigation was 60k on a citadel, which is not 30 dreads
[16:58] <tinkerhell> Unless high angle guns?
[17:00] <scott_ormands> we dont know anything about resist profile or post citadel dread dps etc...
[17:06] <rocket_x> tinkerhell: its 30k on an xl i think
[17:06] <rocket_x> and when fozzie says they used 40 dreads
[17:06] <rocket_x> it probably means he ISboxed 20
[17:07] <rocket_x> and larrikin ISboxed 20
[17:07] <rocket_x> lol
[17:07] <scott_ormands> probably not a lot of micromanaging goin on in this case so if it was more people managing the same amount of dreads they might have been able to survive
[17:12] <ccp_fozzie> we had about 15-18 actual pilots, of varying levels of eve experience and the more experienced people multiboxed more dreads
[17:13] <ccp_fozzie> so yeah, experienced pilots in individual ships would have been able to manage heat and last a bit longer, but keep in mind this is an early test
[17:17] <scott_ormands> Awesome, thanks for the info. I know you said its an early test but can we expect a dev blog in the next few weeks? i know i speak for a lot of us that we are really excited about this stuff and only hearing these snippets feels like a tease at times.
[17:18] <ccp_fozzie> we'll be getting a dev blog out when we can, not quite ready to promise a time though
[17:18] <ccp_fozzie> I definitely understand
[17:19] <scott_ormands> totally understand, I'm looking forward to it
[17:27] <rocket_x> :simple_smile:
[17:27] <rocket_x> i've seen some devs play EVE
[17:28] <rocket_x> and i've seen some devs show other devs how to undock
[17:28] <rocket_x> rofl
[17:29] <rocket_x> @here confirmed btw [cc: focusgrouplogbot]
[17:29] <rocket_x> EHP is ~55% of what it was before
[17:29] <gorski_car> coolio
[17:29] <gorski_car> dreads are going to be dying all over the place
[17:29] <rocket_x> rev structure = 203k -> 113k
[17:30] <rocket_x> armor is the same
[17:30] <rocket_x> shield is 140k->78k
[17:30] <scott_ormands> rev will be strong after changes
[17:30] <scott_ormands> extra low plus t2 guns and ammo
[17:30] <noobman> its supposed to be 30mins of assault at max dps cap to rf amirite?
[17:30] <5pitf1re> plus 5GN MWD
[17:31] <5pitf1re> imma kite nags in a rev with scorch xl
[17:31] <5pitf1re> I'll pretend to be a big navy slicer
[17:31] <gorski_car> http://puu.sh/mEfZ8/65ad902f6e.jpg
[17:32] <5pitf1re> ccp_larrikin: can you make the art team remake the revelation model? like, tell them to take the navy slicer model and upsize it a couple of times
[17:32] <noobman> depends on the rage of the "anti capital" torps and if you are just gonna sit at max range with phoenixs and firewall incoming damage
[17:39] <noobman> http://i.imgur.com/ClyvK1m.png
[17:51] <nync> @5pitf1re: it was sneaky attempt:P
[18:32] <tiberizzle> i just came here to say that losing 15 dreads to presumably the structure's unmanned autodefenses sounds mindblowingly stupid
[18:32] <gorski_car> the structure was piloted
[18:32] <tiberizzle> ok so thats only incredibly stupid then
[18:33] <corbexx> structures wont shoot if they are unmanned
[18:33] <gorski_car> and they had no logistics on field
[18:33] <tiberizzle> because logistics help dreads a lot rite
[18:33] <gorski_car> ))
[18:34] <5pitf1re> tiberizzle: if it would be too easy to nuke a XL citadel, why would I want to pay so much for one?
[18:34] <tiberizzle> people buy titans
[18:34] <tiberizzle> xl cit = 2 titans
[18:34] <tiberizzle> can 2 titans maul 15 dreads unsupported
[18:34] <5pitf1re> wat
[18:34] <gorski_car> I wonder how battleships will survive against xls
[18:34] <5pitf1re> you can't compare a station to a titan
[18:35] <tiberizzle> you can't?
[18:35] <xttz> this wasn't a balancing test, it was a mechanical one
[18:35] <tiberizzle> similar cost
[18:35] <tiberizzle> refit
[18:35] <tiberizzle> ship maintenance bay and fleet hanger (formerly known as corp hanger)
[18:35] <tiberizzle> titans literally were intended to fill this role in ccps starry eyed youth
[18:35] <5pitf1re> I'm aware, times changed
[18:36] <5pitf1re> let's be honest, POS defenses nowadays are laughable
[18:36] <5pitf1re> you bring a cap fleet and they might as well not be defended most of the time
[18:37] <tiberizzle> and?
[18:38] <5pitf1re> and that sounds like good gameplay or good mechanics to you?
[18:38] <xttz> killing dreads with POSes used to be awesome
[18:38] <tiberizzle> yes it sounds pretty good when you consider the alternatives
[18:38] <tiberizzle> poses cost as much as a fit t3
[18:38] <tiberizzle> it would make absolutely no sense for people to be able to troll you with death stars that mauled entire fleets
[18:39] <5pitf1re> yea, but it seems like you want to bring the same POS gameplay to citadels
[18:39] <tiberizzle> i sure do
[18:39] <5pitf1re> which are a bit more expensive and serve another role
[18:39] <tiberizzle> titans, supers cant function unsupported
[18:39] <tiberizzle> why the fuck can a station lmao
[18:39] <5pitf1re> it is not unsupported
[18:39] <xttz> who said it could
[18:39] <5pitf1re> that's why it hurts so much?
[18:39] <tiberizzle> putting 5 dudes in inties in a deathstar to gun it isnt a support fleet
[18:40] <tiberizzle> any more than 5 dudes gunning a citadel is a support fleet
[18:40] <xttz> we dont know the full ewar capabilities of citadels yet, for all we know those dread losses could have been easily avoided
[18:41] <tiberizzle> so im supposed to comment on this when its already decided that you must suicide half a dread fleet to siege a pos and all they want us to decide is what color the torps are or something? :stuck_out_tongue:
[18:41] <5pitf1re> it is not a POS
[18:42] <5pitf1re> if you decide to RF the capital building of an alliance you will have to actually risk a lot
[18:42] <tiberizzle> even if the alliance is almost totally afk
[18:43] <tiberizzle> does that sound like any other dumb mechanics we've recently buried
[18:43] <5pitf1re> afaik it was manned
[18:43] <5pitf1re> so not sure what you're on about here
[18:43] <tiberizzle> a handful of dudes manning it isnt a support fleet
[18:43] <5pitf1re> remember this is an XL, not a M or L
[18:44] <tiberizzle> it should not require you to suicide half a dread fleet to kill a citadel that has no support fleet
[18:44] <tiberizzle> thats pretty much what im saying
[18:45] <5pitf1re> so to you it should be a sitting duck
[18:45] <tiberizzle> undefended structure should die with minimal losses, making undefended structure require a dread fleet to siege and half of it to die seems like a very thinly veiled attempt to force people to use supers to siege them so people can suicide dreads and jihad down the supers and it all sounds so very forced
[18:46] <tiberizzle> you could skip the entire premise of it being a fight and just
[18:46] <tiberizzle> make a 'dreadnaught bay' on the station
[18:46] <tiberizzle> where you park 15 dreads and it blows up
[18:46] <5pitf1re> well, I wouldn't take this numbers as final anyway
[18:46] <xttz> That's a pretty cool strawman you have there dude
[18:46] <5pitf1re> also, not even this entire testing situation
[18:47] <5pitf1re> but generally, I don't feel like such a structure should be just a sitting duck so that you don't have to risk anything sieging it
[18:53] <tiberizzle> having to siege dreads on someones undock isnt risking enough for you?
[18:53] <tiberizzle> the structure has to mangle them if 5 dudes in pods happen to be around to collect their mails too?
[20:12] <scott_ormands> I think everyone is reading into this to much. It was a mechanics test not a gameplay or balance test
[20:14] <max_kolonko> Then use titans - you can rep them. But before we nake any judgments we realy should wait for nore concrete numbers. Also i agree that something like xl should cause losses to capital fleet siegeing it. But maybe thevpower of defence could scale with defense multiplier?
[21:09] <sebastien_st.frusquin> I assume the fittings of a Citadel will be recognisable by their model, like ship weapons are now right ?
[21:09] <sebastien_st.frusquin> which means anyone attacking a Citadel will now what weapons it carry
[21:09] <sebastien_st.frusquin> if it's an anti-dread Citadel, bring a siegefleet :simple_smile:
[21:09] <sebastien_st.frusquin> if it's anti-subcaps, bring dreads
[21:10] <sebastien_st.frusquin> unless a Citadel can refit on the fly, it will be pretty straightforward
[22:07] <thoricfrosthammer> a citadel will be able to fit weapons systems of multiple sizes
[22:07] <thoricfrosthammer> i think
[22:07] <thoricfrosthammer> but /shrug