[10:43] <ccp_larrikin> https://i.imgur.com/Iqy3lny.png
[13:15] <darren_fox> What is Icelandic for unresign from office?
[13:48] <ccp_larrikin> afturkallar afsogn (CCP Quant said so)
[13:49] <darren_fox> :smile:
[14:44] <scott_ormands> Are dreads getting utility highs?
[14:44] <scott_ormands> SISI is showing+1 highs to all dreads currently
[14:46] <ccp_larrikin> Yes
[14:49] <scott_ormands> Interesting
[15:25] <titus.tallang> would be interested in reasoning there
[15:25] <titus.tallang> i thought pretty much everybody present was against it?
[15:30] <ccp_larrikin> We wanted to give them a little more flexibility
[15:31] <ccp_larrikin> and the main counter argument was 'it removes some of the flexability / uniqness of carriers', which given the new fighter squadrons we're not as worried about.
[15:34] <scott_ormands> Will definitely give them some defense against smaller tacklers. I expect smartbombs to become the meta for fitting there. Especially for null groups
[15:36] <ccp_larrikin> Interestingly we've heard a bunch of different 'I expect that Smartbombs/Neuts/Cynos will become the meta for fitting there'
[15:38] <muhadin> It seems strong but i like it
[15:38] <muhadin> I doubt you're gonna be using a capital neut in there
[15:39] <muhadin> cap use too high unless you plan around it
[15:40] <titus.tallang> my opinion remains that it dilutes the distinctiveness of the class
[15:42] <scott_ormands> Neut for LS SB for null and the occasional cyno mixed in all around