[06:31] <darren_fox> The capital neuts and heavy warp disruptor/scram, will they be capital sized in m3 and cost, or similar to the regular subcap ones?
[07:53] <rocket_x> i pulled the useful feedback stuff from the r/eve threads i made and put it on the focus group stuff
[08:32] <5pitf1re> This is a very good question.
[08:32] <5pitf1re> > Do you think that the introduction of capital neuts will alter the balance of dreadnoughts further away from the Revelation and Moros and more towards the Naglfar and Phoenix?
[08:35] <5pitf1re> We’ll have capital capacitor boosters and batteries but combined with possible module sizes and the combat refitting changes this may lead to a very static meta for Revelations and Moroseseseses
[09:00] <darren_fox> The answer to that question really depends on the effectiveness of the capital capacitor boosters, and to a lesser extent the capital ancillary boosters.
[09:07] <darren_fox> A Heavy capacitor booster w/navy 800s boost ~58.5GJ/s, and a single heavy gremlin neut on a bhaalgorn neuts ~40GJ/s. Say if the Capital capacitor booster uses navy cap 8000s for ~585GJ/s, it might be enough to counter the disadvantage that the Moros and Rev currently face against subcap neuts
[09:52] <sebastien_st.frusquin> on the other hand, it will carry very few of these because of their size
[09:52] <sebastien_st.frusquin> about 6 or 7 in cargo, and 5 or 6 in the module itself
[09:53] <sebastien_st.frusquin> if we assume the usual size progression
[09:54] <darren_fox> mm, which makes it very hard to judge the impact of the capital neut mods
[09:54] <sebastien_st.frusquin> yup
[09:55] <sebastien_st.frusquin> question, the sieged dreadnoughts are losing EWar immunity, but are they keeping Remote Assistance immunity ?
[09:55] <sebastien_st.frusquin> I think they are, but I'm not entirely sure through my fever haze
[09:56] <darren_fox> That is my impression yes
[09:56] <darren_fox> Which also makes it hard to balance HAW tracking
[09:57] <sebastien_st.frusquin> in that case, I don't think there will be much incentive left for active tanked armor dreads
[09:57] <sebastien_st.frusquin> shield can do it with ancillary shield boosters, but armor dreads cannot since the ancillary armor reps use capacitor
[09:58] <sebastien_st.frusquin> so the only reasonable choice for the guy undocking first and not knowing what will happen to him will be passive buffer, with an ancillary SB maybe
[09:59] <sebastien_st.frusquin> the capital cap boosters may be useful to get at jump cap, but not to sustain the tank and weapons
[10:00] <darren_fox> Well, on the flipside, say you want to use 10 dreads with HAW to break a BS fleet. If those have to use 2 Tracking computers to be able to track while being tracking disrupted, you don't really have a lot of midslots left for shield tank Moros/Nag
[10:00] <sebastien_st.frusquin> I'm not sure 10 dreads with HAW can break a BS fleet
[10:01] <darren_fox> Probably not, in which case I fail to see the viability of HAW dreads
[10:01] <sebastien_st.frusquin> for blob warfare :simple_smile:
[10:01] <sebastien_st.frusquin> and to definitely burry the rattlesnake concept in the dustbin of history
[10:02] <sebastien_st.frusquin> the issue with HAW is that it's investing way too much
[10:02] <darren_fox> Maybe. Unless rattlesnakes outrange HAWs
[10:02] <darren_fox> yes
[10:02] <sebastien_st.frusquin> all those HAW dreads are not going to be efficient at fighting other caps
[10:02] <sebastien_st.frusquin> and they are alos going to be useless against armor T3s, and probably command ships as well
[10:03] <sebastien_st.frusquin> so they can be useful for blob warfare, where you can jump 50 HAW and have 50 more CapFight ready behind them
[10:03] <sebastien_st.frusquin> or to murder people with low skills and ISK reserves that cannot afford the top-tier doctrines
[10:04] <sebastien_st.frusquin> or they can be entirely useless
[10:04] <sebastien_st.frusquin> none of these possibilities seem appealing to me
[10:04] <sebastien_st.frusquin> and let's not get started on HAW titans :simple_smile:
[10:23] <5pitf1re> I know it sounds odd, just spitballing ideas right now but can’t we give armour dreads a hull bonus to armour rep capacitor consumption or make capital AARs not use cap as well?
[10:24] <5pitf1re> I haven’t ran any numbers yet, so keep that in mind.
[11:40] <tinkerhell> To me. If the capitals are keeping around the same cap now, when they land at 28% cap, it isnt going to take much to nuke that. Meaning i dont really see the benefit of fitting cap recharge.
[11:41] <tinkerhell> And considering 2 of the fax are cap recharge bonused..
[12:18] <xttz> Is it worth rethinking the cap use for a jump? It was originally intended as a form of 'jump fatigue' so people couldn't jump around repeatedly
[12:18] <xttz> With the new cap warfare mods, caps just joining a fight can be very vulnerable
[17:11] <ccp_larrikin> @here y0 m8s [cc: focusgrouplogbot]
[17:11] <ccp_larrikin> whos around?
[17:11] <titus.tallang> sup
[17:11] <jezza_mcwaffle> Arghhhh!
[17:11] <steveronuken> ?
[17:11] <ccp_larrikin> awhmahgawd
[17:11] <titus.tallang> i am doing my democratic duty right now or something, i think it counts as around
[17:12] <ccp_larrikin> ok, question about caldari HAWs
[17:12] <ccp_larrikin> got a couple of options
[17:12] <steveronuken> My preference is a rapid torp launcher. :smile:
[17:12] <ccp_larrikin> option 1) Make them torp launchers. But have to give the hull/siege a bonus to get their range out to about 60km. ROF would be about once every 20 seconds, so their alpha would be pretty high (against design goals)
[17:13] <ccp_larrikin> option 2) Make the cruise launchers, would have to have a hull/siege penalty to range or they would have crazy range (150km). Same probelms with alpha but their application would be closer to what we want
[17:13] <steveronuken> In part for yelling "Fire Ze Torpedos!"
[17:13] <ccp_larrikin> option 3) Rapid torp launcher. Probably OP, would have to be pretty brutaly balanced.
[17:14] <titus.tallang> why can't they shoot xl missiles with a damage modifier?
[17:14] <ccp_larrikin> option 4) Create a new type of XL Missile specificly for the HAW launchers. Bit worse than cruise applciation, but get the ROF up higher
[17:14] <titus.tallang> and a bonus to application
[17:14] <steveronuken> (I want a macross missile massacre)
[17:14] <ccp_larrikin> @titus.tallang: cause of dogma funkyness
[17:14] <ccp_larrikin> basicly
[17:14] <titus.tallang> or is there no way to have application/damage mods on launcher?
[17:14] <titus.tallang> for a missile
[17:14] <ccp_larrikin> ^^^
[17:14] <titus.tallang> welp
[17:14] <titus.tallang> didn't you guys just rewrite the whole thing :smile:
[17:14] <ccp_larrikin> hah no :simple_smile:
[17:15] <ccp_larrikin> just a part of it
[17:15] <steveronuken> option 4 seems viable, tbh. Especially if you can get art to agree to more graphics. (multiple missiles per launch if possible)
[17:15] <titus.tallang> yes please
[17:16] <jezza_mcwaffle> I think option 1 or 4 seems the best, I mean obliviously its preferable to have a missile that is tailored for its role, but torps with a range bonus sounds good too since torps don't apply badly with paints and a web, I think its easier to balance out the likes of the missiles when you know what sort of range and application the gun based dreads will have, unless the phoenix is meant to be fairly different.
[17:17] <ccp_larrikin> trying to not have it be the uberboat or black sheep.
[17:17] <titus.tallang> yeah but more special case hull bonuses make me groan
[17:17] <ccp_larrikin> yup me too
[17:17] <ccp_larrikin> but a whole new type of missile isn't exactly ideal.
[17:17] <ccp_larrikin> XL Heavy Missiles?
[17:17] <titus.tallang> we'll end up with capitals having a two-page long "role bonus" list at this rate
[17:17] <steveronuken> XL Multi Warhead missiles.
[17:18] <titus.tallang> yeah something like that
[17:18] <ccp_larrikin> they would launch one at a time
[17:18] <ccp_larrikin> not multiple
[17:18] <jezza_mcwaffle> :disappointed:
[17:18] <titus.tallang> can't we have art that makes one missile launched that splits into multiple shortly after launch?
[17:18] <titus.tallang> :disappointed:
[17:18] <titus.tallang> would look really really cool
[17:18] <steveronuken> I know :smile: The concept would be more: launch one missile. it becomes a homing swarm :wink:
[17:18] <steveronuken> hence better application
[17:18] <ccp_larrikin> @titus.tallang: sure, anything is possible, but doing that would cost time that could be put into making something else :simple_smile:
[17:18] <titus.tallang> :rolleyes:
[17:19] <titus.tallang> iirc hams already look like that i think
[17:19] <titus.tallang> or one of the other short range ones
[17:19] <titus.tallang> rockets maybe?
[17:19] <ccp_larrikin> perhaps but now your asking art for new missile assets + animation + skins for different races + probably more
[17:20] <steveronuken> :cry:
[17:20] <titus.tallang> you are adding new ships, the "new skins" is kind of a home-made problem
[17:20] <ccp_larrikin> "skins" = coloration for each race
[17:20] <ccp_larrikin> or damgae type
[17:20] <steveronuken> I've got a clue what Art's workload is like. It's pretty full
[17:20] <jezza_mcwaffle> I think everyone likes missiles that look cool, whether its worth if is another question. I'm not a fan of basing it off of the heavy missile since that seems wierd.
[17:20] <jezza_mcwaffle> Heavy (Cruiser) > Torp (Battleship) > Heavy? (Dread)
[17:20] <titus.tallang> anyway you can always run it past art, and if you see them flinch back in pain, then quietly slither off again
[17:21] <ccp_larrikin> Hah
[17:21] <titus.tallang> players would love it i feel
[17:21] <jezza_mcwaffle> Hey could we get new missile animations for... *Hisssssssssssss*
[17:21] <ccp_larrikin> ok, next question
[17:21] <ccp_larrikin> if we make a new missile
[17:21] <ccp_larrikin> what do we do about skills?
[17:21] <ccp_larrikin> every different msisile type has its own skills
[17:22] <jezza_mcwaffle> Oh god the skill discussion, again.
[17:22] <steveronuken> I'd base it off the dread short range missile skill
[17:22] <titus.tallang> ^
[17:22] <ccp_larrikin> thats torpedoes
[17:22] <steveronuken> no need for another skill
[17:22] <titus.tallang> i assume all HAWs will be short range?
[17:22] <ccp_larrikin> that doesn't really make sence
[17:22] <titus.tallang> for gun dreads
[17:22] <ccp_larrikin> @titus.tallang: sure, but gun skills work differently to missile skills :simple_smile:
[17:23] <titus.tallang> yes
[17:23] <titus.tallang> i mean in terms of range
[17:23] <steveronuken> What are the T2 HAG's going to use skill wise?
[17:23] <titus.tallang> so you only want one kind of haw launcher
[17:23] <steveronuken> new skill, or one of the existing ones :smile:
[17:23] <titus.tallang> ^
[17:23] <jezza_mcwaffle> Could the new missile (if we go for that) be based around the existing torpedos but be named something different. So like "XL Light Torpedo" or something. Then the skills come from that.
[17:24] <titus.tallang> you can easily handwave that as "a modified citadel torpedo that splits into a flurry of smaller missiles shortly after launch, designed to maximize impact on smaller targets" or whatever
[17:25] <steveronuken> Or 'just before impact' :wink: to cut down on art's load.
[17:25] <ccp_larrikin> @titus.tallang: missile skills have a different progression to guns. We would want to maintain that uniquness
[17:25] <titus.tallang> they still do?
[17:26] <jezza_mcwaffle> A new skills for these weapons if T2 are being introduced makes alot of sense since otherwise how do you balance the t2 out (training wise), and you could give anyone who has Caldari Dreadnought (or titan) level 1 plus Torpedos or Cruise level 5 the new weapons systems.
[17:26] <titus.tallang> you just avoid having three different capital missile skills instead of two
[17:26] <ccp_larrikin> existing gun HAW use existing XL skills, while T2 versions use SR specalisation
[17:26] <titus.tallang> and the new HAW gun uses T1 and T2 SR skill
[17:26] <titus.tallang> i don't see the problem, really
[17:26] <titus.tallang> and handwave the "it's a different kind of citadel torpedo" thing
[17:27] <ccp_larrikin> but its not, it doesn't use torpedo applciation, it fires considerably faster, it uses completely different amunition
[17:27] <ccp_larrikin> that would be like hand waving the skill for rapid light launchers
[17:27] <ccp_larrikin> 'its just a type of heavy missile launcher'
[17:27] <ccp_larrikin> its not, its a light missile launcher
[17:27] <ccp_larrikin> it uses light missile skills
[17:28] <titus.tallang> >"a _modified_ citadel torpedo that splits into a flurry of smaller missiles shortly after launch, designed to maximize impact on smaller targets"
[17:28] <titus.tallang> you guys have totally used "a modified version" to handwave an area of effect warp disruption field into an infinite strength single target scram, y'know :stuck_out_tongue:
[17:28] <titus.tallang> and if it's a citadel torp shell that splits into smaller missiles then it would make sense that it uses the citadel torp skill
[17:28] <titus.tallang> to me at least vOv
[17:28] <ccp_larrikin> I'm not sure that example applies well at all
[17:29] <ccp_larrikin> If we did a rapid torpedo launcher, it would use the regular torpdeo skill
[17:29] <ccp_larrikin> we wouldn't make it use the XL torpdeo skill
[17:29] <titus.tallang> you are launching something that's similar to a citadel torp (but it needs a modded launcher because ~ reasons~) but it has better application because it splits into smaller missiles
[17:29] <ccp_larrikin> No, its considerably different to a citadel torp
[17:30] <ccp_larrikin> it has a simmilar range, but vastly different application
[17:30] <ccp_larrikin> and speed
[17:30] <steveronuken> torp launcher, using the torp skill, would be acceptable, I think.
[17:30] <ccp_larrikin> and damage amount
[17:30] <titus.tallang> yes, rapid torp launcher that changes missile attributes would be optimal
[17:30] <steveronuken> or cruise and cruise. But that has range 'issues'
[17:30] <titus.tallang> but we can't do that apparently
[17:30] <titus.tallang> because :legacycode:
[17:30] <ccp_larrikin> Nope
[17:31] <ccp_larrikin> the cruise with a range penalty might be an option...
[17:31] <ccp_larrikin> 'rapid cruise missile launcher'
[17:31] <titus.tallang> application on cruises is bad tho
[17:31] <ccp_larrikin> but its not on torpdeos?
[17:31] <titus.tallang> also, if you make a rapid torp launcher, would it have the reload time thing that subcap rapids do?
[17:31] <titus.tallang> torps apply better than cruise iirc? idk i rarely use BS missiles
[17:31] <ccp_larrikin> @titus.tallang: if its a rapid torp launcher, yes.
[17:31] <titus.tallang> that...sounds like a balance nightmare
[17:32] <jezza_mcwaffle> Don't know if it sounds like a nightmare, how is it much different to existing rapid launchers
[17:32] <ccp_larrikin> yup
[17:32] <titus.tallang> it's a balancing nightmare when comparing with gun dreads
[17:35] <jezza_mcwaffle> I don't see how that is any different when comparing gun based weapons to existing rapid launchers, unless your implying on a dreadnaught it would be very much inferior or superior (which if you went with using torpedos rather than cruiser would still have application problems without a fleet which is good)
[17:48] <ccp_larrikin> so, I'm thinking rapid torp launcher, with a roll bonus on the hull
[17:48] <ccp_larrikin> but the reload timer prob won't be a full 35 seconds (closer to 20ish maybe)
[17:50] <titus.tallang> ccp_larrikin: can you send whoever is responsible for banners in launcher and on http://community.eveonline.com/ a memo
[17:50] <titus.tallang> and tell him to _please_ put up something about the csm election
[17:50] <titus.tallang> i get more and more frustrated every time i open the launcher and see double adverts for GIVE US MONEY PLS and nothing about the election
[17:51] <ccp_larrikin> passed it on :simple_smile:
[17:52] <titus.tallang> ty
[18:27] <jezza_mcwaffle> Sounds good :simple_smile:
[18:40] <capqu> no they dont
[18:40] <capqu> cruises apply better
[18:40] <capqu> a rapid xl launcher would be rapid cruise launcher if following the light/heavy line
[18:50] <capqu> for the XL gun i would consider instead of using a new missile
[18:50] <capqu> do like a 16 battery of old missiles
[18:52] <capqu> Quad-Linked Cruise Missile Launcher I
[18:53] <capqu> make it take cruise missiles and eat 4 ammo at once?
[18:54] <capqu> reroll on miss;)
[18:55] <capqu> and give it -50% fuel per missile to half the range
[18:55] <capqu> some lore garbage about not being able to fit as much fuel since its in a quad linked launcher
[18:59] <xttz> yeah give it 4D6 armour penetration and ignores cover
[18:59] <xttz> no wait
[19:01] <capqu> ))
[19:01] <capqu> but yea i dont think a new missile is a good idea
[19:01] <capqu> since missile capitals already need twice as many skills as gunnery ones
[20:04] <jezza_mcwaffle> @ccp_larrikin: Have you thought about reducing the current phoenix range, currently its very easy to make the torp phoenix reach 100km with fairly little impact to its usage
[20:27] <capqu> 60km base is a bit high and a tieover from when 60km was ur absolute limit with no way to increase it
[20:27] <capqu> so yea ur prolly right it could be reduced