[06:30] <rowells> @lemkorgengod >They should be better at being HACs than HACs
[06:30] <rowells> That line of balance goes against both the stated purpose of T3s (flexibility/generalization) and leads to invalidation of any ship that a T3 is bonuses for.
[06:30] <rowells> T3s can still be very powerful by performing well in multiple roles, as opposed to being the best at any one. Which is one of the things that has outliers currently.
[06:43] <rowells> Honestly I think the whole Tech 3 name is misleading in that regard
[06:55] <eustise> it's 'lore' by now anyway so no reason to fight against it
[06:58] <eustise> but yeah, putting cloak in defensive, i don't see why it can't be switched with remote reps/bursts in offensive, it'd reinforce the 'cloaky no damage' concept while also hybridizing any 'support' build
[07:29] <white0rchid> What would most likely end up happening with cloak moving to def sub (as assuming the tank gets dropped significantly), is that as was said above, hunter T3s might start dropping in use. Both the Tengu and Proteus are used for this quite a lot.
[07:31] <white0rchid> As for alternatives in that area, you don't really have any to be honest. Strats can't like covops cynos, so you'd be back to using recons if you wanted tank, and virtually nobody uses them to hunt. It will also open up another area, as long as the tank isn't completely atrocious, we might some use for cloaky dps comps
[07:31] <white0rchid> For the argument of "I don't like that a T3 can tank a carrier", well, you realise you have to spend like 1.5b+ on it for it to do that....
[07:32] <white0rchid> Which is pretty much the same cost as a carrier
[07:32] <white0rchid> So I don't really have any issues there.
[07:32] <white0rchid> If you could get a 600mil T3 to easily tank a carrier, then perhaps that's a little different. But I've not seen that yet.
[07:34] <white0rchid> That's also one thing people tend to forget when arguing ship vs ship, is the cost.
[07:45] <eustise> the fact that some ships aren't used because t3cs are so all-encompassing is part of the issue
[07:46] <eustise> and the problems don't stop at k-space, the ubiquity of t3cs in wormholes is a thing i'd imagine ccp would want to address by the mass rise that's been speculated
[07:48] <eustise> for blops support, the nestor really needs to get that covops and that'll make it the preferred choice, if at a steep markup compared to a t3c
[07:50] <eustise> as for hunting, and i'm assuming null hunting, it's kind of tricky since in the current meta it kinda really is a ceptor or a t3c, for some good reasons, but that's more to do with the environment in which the hunting is done than any 'overpowerdness' of the t3cs
[07:53] <eustise> as for my bag, i'll need to know numbers, but depending on default tank, it may force more in-space refits for exploration as well as making it triply difficult when switched to be able to get out
[08:36] <titus.tallang> unrelated to t3cs, but stratios not being able to light covops cyno feels super random
[11:20] <caprisunkraftfoods> ok heres a fairly serious conversation popping up for the viewers at home
[11:21] <caprisunkraftfoods> HK T3s
[11:21] <caprisunkraftfoods> so do you guys think this ship is balanced
[11:21] <caprisunkraftfoods> http://i.imgur.com/Jr4UfBa.png
[11:21] <caprisunkraftfoods> and 2) do you think losing some of the power of that ship is a worthwhile trade off for switching cloaking to a defensive sub
[11:28] <white0rchid> I think that if you were to take that fit which is incredibly specialized for what it does (it literally can't do anything else but catch ratters) then when you factor in that you are risking 1.2b plus either x days training or dump more isk into an injector, it seems a fair trade off
[11:30] <white0rchid> Considering it can't really catch supers, your biggest targets are carriers and they cost roughly around 1.7b for a standard ratting fit
[11:31] <mawderator> https://puu.sh/w4rwX/cfc3f4fb97.png
[11:31] <mawderator> This is the more expensive HK that I use
[11:32] <white0rchid> Then you're risking the same isk value on field as the ship you are catching. Which isn't all that OP imo
[11:32] <white0rchid> Yeah. Tbh you have to spend 1.2b+ to get a decently tanked hk
[11:34] <mawderator> There's pretty much zero other hull that has this role
[11:36] <white0rchid> Yeah indeed
[11:45] <white0rchid> You have to ask what are your alternatives in that situation. If you remove the ability from tengus/proteus to be decent hk's, where does that responsibility shift to?
[11:45] <white0rchid> You want something that can field decent enough tank to not die instantly, be cloaky, able to light covops cyno and nullified. Recons are utterly terrible. Slow, not nullified, flimsy tanks in comparison.
[11:47] <white0rchid> Bombers, covops frigs and prospects are too weak
[11:51] <frsd> With cloak in def sub we'd also be losing the ability to use black ops bridgeable logi/links (if link t3cs are still going to be a thing) or at least those will be way weaker than currently. Granted it's super niche but they do exist.
[11:52] <frsd> I don't see cloaky dps t3c's giving us anything that we currently don't already have
[11:57] <caprisunkraftfoods> @white0rchid various approximations of that fit I linked are really popular for blops hunters
[11:57] <caprisunkraftfoods> especially people who hunt around provi and such
[11:58] <caprisunkraftfoods> like you mince specifics all you want, but really what I'm getting is, do you guys feel its balanced that a tengu can get ~1500 dps tank for spending a bit over a bil
[11:58] <caprisunkraftfoods> like the way I'm looking at it, that ship still reps ~1000 dps after the changes
[11:59] <caprisunkraftfoods> and that seems kinda fine to me
[11:59] <caprisunkraftfoods> I don't think you should be able to perma tank a carrier like that
[12:02] <frsd> I think thats more an issue with the RF Large Cap batteries
[12:03] <white0rchid> It's still about cost though, right? You're spending 1.2b+ to do a very specific job
[12:03] <frsd> that allow you to fit the XL shield boosters and run them almost permanently
[12:03] <caprisunkraftfoods> the permanence isn't really the issue
[12:04] <caprisunkraftfoods> like you need to be able to run it for 30s at most while you burn to where you want for the cyno, then hold for 60s while the cyno cycles
[12:04] <caprisunkraftfoods> if you can live for that long you're gucci
[12:04] <caprisunkraftfoods> and that still puts you in the territory of being able to overheat for most of that time
[12:04] <caprisunkraftfoods> also white not to be like #nopoors
[12:05] <caprisunkraftfoods> but 1.2B for a dedicated ratter hunting ship is chump change
[12:05] <caprisunkraftfoods> ^ for a lot of people*
[12:06] <frsd> is that screenshot with blue pill?
[12:06] <caprisunkraftfoods> no
[12:06] <caprisunkraftfoods> no links no implants no boosters
[12:08] <frsd> depending on how your capacitor is, it's actually comparable to an x-l ancil which gives you 3k for 38s but doesnt use any capacitor so you can drop the battery
[12:09] <frsd> but the more general hunter fits ive seen people use with scram/point/scanner normally die to carriers
[12:09] <caprisunkraftfoods> ^
[12:11] <mawderator> I'm perfectly fine with there being an isk+overheat threshold you have to hit on an HK tengu to survive being able to hold a single ratting carrier that's running zero e-war to counter you
[12:11] <frsd> also 1 hyperspatial is very slow, so yeah if you catch a carrier youll tank it all day
[12:17] <mawderator> wrt: SP loss on strategic cruiser depth
[12:17] <mawderator> https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/a-new-era-of-clones/
[12:17] <mawderator> _Note: Subsystem skills related to T3 Strategic Cruisers will still work as they did before. This is because their skill loss is a component of the ship balancing itself. This may be revisited in the future._
[12:19] <mawderator> Basically this reads to me as: "We want to keep this mechanic because Strategic Cruisers are powerful"
[12:21] <mawderator> If they're no longer going to be as powerful as they are currently, why not kill the SP loss mechanic.
[12:26] <caprisunkraftfoods> hey what about this
[12:27] <caprisunkraftfoods> so we're gonna have a buffer sub and an active sub right
[12:27] <caprisunkraftfoods> what if the cloaking defensive sub gives you a small bonus to both active and passive
[12:27] <caprisunkraftfoods> or actually even better just a small resist bonus
[12:27] <caprisunkraftfoods> like maybe 2%/level to resists
[12:28] <caprisunkraftfoods> would you give you an actual reason to train it as opposed to some decloak locking delay bonus
[12:28] <caprisunkraftfoods> it doesn't have to be all or nothing
[12:30] <frsd> decloak locking delay bonus would actually b p strong
[12:30] <frsd> biggest reason to use bombers for hunting besides cost
[12:30] <caprisunkraftfoods> c
[12:31] <caprisunkraftfoods> or just hunt with blops bs :sunglasses:
[12:48] <white0rchid> Whether or not 1.2 is pocket change to some people isn't really something you should balance on. It's all about what is comparably powerful.
[12:51] <caprisunkraftfoods> well cost is a balancing factor
[12:51] <caprisunkraftfoods> and I wasn't addressing cost I was addressing your argument about specialisation of a fit
[12:52] <white0rchid> Yeah, that's fair.
[12:53] <white0rchid> Slack says mawderator has been permanently typing for like an hour now. So either it's screwed or he's writing a novel.
[12:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> hes not for me think its your client bugged
[13:01] <white0rchid> So wrt bonuses for that defensive sub, the adaptive shielding already has a 4% bonus to resist per level
[13:02] <white0rchid> So without having the new details for the subs, you could model it off that
[13:02] <white0rchid> And see what it looks like
[13:03] <white0rchid> I'm out shopping with the wife so can't check it out myself atm
[13:03] <white0rchid> Bank holiday... Yay
[13:13] <frsd> also by switching the cloak to defensive from offensive you are probably going to get +1 high and -1 med on the tengu
[13:31] <eustise> the slot layout is what i'm super interested in, a lot can go wrong there for a lot of t3c niches, no matter the raw stats
[13:32] <eustise> but i think it's safe to say the cloak will not get the same amount of tank slots as the defensives
[13:33] <titus.tallang> also random idea: don't give the cloak sub any extra highs, so it has to sac a weapon
[13:33] <eustise> gorramit, jin's here, who invited him?
[13:33] <eustise> o7
[13:34] <jintaan> Spooky space ghosts
[13:34] <titus.tallang> alternately could even have -1 hardpoint because it has to reroute power or whatever bullshit
[13:34] <titus.tallang> though it's still shit thematically
[13:36] <jintaan> But, re: Skill loss real quick, skill loss being removed would lower the overall envelope that T3Cs have, as you're removing a drawback. And whilst we're already looking at bringing them into a more healthy spot that doesn't mean nerfing them IMO, it means making their power shine in more appropriate places. Removing a drawback changes that equation. I'm definitely not against it, but it's something to keep in mind.
[13:37] <titus.tallang> imo from a perception standpoint the skill loss doesn't make anyone not fly them if they're better than the other option
[13:37] <eustise> Fozzie was pretty sure that they'll keep the sp loss no matter
[13:37] <titus.tallang> it just makes you feel shit when you do
[13:38] <titus.tallang> i'd also love to hear from ccp what their envisioned trade-off on the cloak sub would be
[13:39] <titus.tallang> because it's a def sub, so significant tank trade-off makes thematic sense, but as many have pointed out it makes them shit as hks
[13:39] <eustise> i'd personally see cloak moved as an offensive system, competing with damage, not with tank
[13:40] <titus.tallang> (also, personal side note: a specialist hunter ship being able to hold down a ratting carrier that didn't prepare to defend himself against hostiles is fine)
[13:40] <titus.tallang> yeah i'd think it way healthier as an offensive sub too
[13:40] <eustise> that''d crimp blops support but as mentioned, that'd get solved really quickly with a covops nestor
[13:41] <eustise> but i'm not sure they want to 'extend' this to that ship
[13:41] <titus.tallang> which is why I'm wondering what ccp's vision is, there's gotta be a thought process behind why they announced it as defensive
[13:42] <eustise> we should be getting a nice chunk of update on that today or tomorrow, seeing as we've finished blobbing this slack
[13:44] <caprisunkraftfoods> I feel like there are a lot more interesting options for T3s as cloaky DPS ships with cloaking as a defensive sub than the current situation
[13:44] <white0rchid> Yeah I think that's kinda where I'm at now. I'd like to know how ccp envision this all playing out.
[13:45] <jintaan> "it just makes you feel shit when you do" - That's part of the 'cost' of them currently though, they do hurt when you lose them, even though you can buy that SP back.
[13:45] <white0rchid> Well @caprisunkraftfoods I think that both nullified and cloaking subs need significant drawbacks to make them balanced
[13:45] <white0rchid> So at present both of those drawbacks are dps
[13:45] <caprisunkraftfoods> losing a low slot is a fairly significant drawkback
[13:45] <white0rchid> Nullified loses a low, cloak loses quite a bit more
[13:45] <jintaan> I disagree on Cloaking and Nullification individually being bad. It's the combination of them that is the strong part.
[13:46] <white0rchid> Yes sorry I was agreeing with you Capri
[13:46] <caprisunkraftfoods> ah
[13:46] <caprisunkraftfoods> I'd also point that, as well as the low, you lose out on gaining a bonus from one of the other prop subs
[13:46] <white0rchid> The difference is that in switching cloak to Def sub, whereas previously you had to sacrifice dps, you could eliminate one entire use for the ships (hk)
[13:47] <caprisunkraftfoods> like warp speed, base speed and AB subs are really powerful
[13:47] <caprisunkraftfoods> so you lose out on NOT having those
[13:47] <white0rchid> So either that's ccp intention or it should be taken into consideration
[13:47] <caprisunkraftfoods> no AB speed sub is actually one of the biggest downsides to the current AHAC Proteus
[13:48] <jintaan> ^
[13:48] <caprisunkraftfoods> I don't want that to change either
[13:48] <caprisunkraftfoods> scram prots would be OP as shit with an AB bonus
[13:48] <white0rchid> Yeah they only get cap reduction atm right?
[13:48] <caprisunkraftfoods> c
[13:49] <jintaan> they get the MWD sig reduction one too, which is hillarious
[13:49] <jintaan> (ly bad)
[13:51] <jintaan> Still, what is the base EHP on a T3 with no specialised defensive sub? It's still like 125k or so on a Proteus with a single plate, which is already massively above what a Recon can offer.
[13:51] <jintaan> How much EHP do you functionally need in the cloaky/nulli role to achieve its goal, and how much is just adding extra breathing room?
[13:52] <titus.tallang> they typically active tank tmk
[13:52] <titus.tallang> (not a blops person)
[13:54] <white0rchid> Yeah if you t2 passive tank it you'll die to even like a marauder
[13:55] <white0rchid> So you need decent active
[13:55] <jintaan> Alright, I've only every dropped/been dropped on by passive tanked things, as I don't have WH experience
[13:57] <caprisunkraftfoods> I'm gonna spend today poking friends who do a lot of blopsing with active tengus
[13:57] <caprisunkraftfoods> get a feel for how much DPS they actually tank
[13:57] <caprisunkraftfoods> I get the impression you can probably just chuck a specific hardener for the damage type of the regions rats and do pretty well
[13:58] <caprisunkraftfoods> like with HK killing supers in drones, I use a broadsword with an EM hardener for hard tackle and never die
[14:00] <white0rchid> Yeah I'm in the bombers bar fc channel too. So I'll have a prod there
[14:01] <jintaan> Bear in mind that how much DPS they currently tank might not be the ideal outcome for T3s to tank, but yeah. I don't think people want hunters to go away, or even be really nerfed too much. The main concern I have is that any other changes to mitigation tanking that are brought up won't be thought of in regards to this aspect, as obviously it's going to help in tanking site aggro and that's currently not something being talked about.
[14:01] <jintaan> T3s have a shitload of use cases, and focusing in on the more problematic ones is important
[14:23] <starfleetcommander> I think most people here agree that we should preserve this role
[14:23] <starfleetcommander> which is good
[14:23] <starfleetcommander> :slightly_smiling_face:
[14:27] <jintaan> Yup, the question is can you do that whilst also tackling some other issues, such as their oppressiveness in the T2 Cruiser space. I think the sig increase is going to go a long way in terms of fleet applicability, but even with these changes you're still going to have a Legion be flat better that a Zealot, and a Proteus be better than a Deimos. Whether that is a problem with HACs being too weak or T3s being too strong is an interesting topic though.
[14:34] <ccp_fozzie> So I don't think "change T3Cs in order to fix X ship group" is a particularly valuable goal
[14:36] <ccp_fozzie> A better way of approaching the problem would be to aim for "change T3Cs to create more differences between them and other ships, so that both T3Cs and those other ship classes can have "design space" for balance"
[14:37] <ccp_fozzie> Identifying areas where we can improve the distinctiveness is going to help our future balance considerations for all these classes now and in the future
[14:37] <jintaan> A problem there is that T3s by design do not have a direct goal, they're intended to cover a wide range of use cases, which leads to them being able to do certain jobs more effectively in certain situations.
[14:37] <ccp_fozzie> yup that makes the job more complicated, although that very flexibility is also an area of distinctiveness we can take advantage of
[14:38] <jintaan> The example I like to use is the Proteus as a recon vs Lachesis. The Lachesis gets better range, but in most armour applications, Proteuses are better as they'll be able to hold tackle for longer due to its greater tank and fitting capability.
[14:39] <jintaan> (Armour fleets in general would be significantly damaged if the current tanky AF T3 Recons were taken away, due to the fact that armour recons have the tank of a wet paper bag)
[14:39] <ccp_fozzie> But I think it's tempting to fall into the trap of saying "Fleet T3Cs feel like better HACs, so let's buff HACs or nerf fleet T3Cs" when a better way of approaching it is "Fleet T3Cs feel like better HACs, so let's drive wedges into the differences between the ship classes so they feel unique and valuable in different ways"
[14:39] <caprisunkraftfoods> fozzie the one thing I'd ask is, in the main, are you happy with the power level of T3s at current
[14:39] <caprisunkraftfoods> because I feel like that's what the real concern here is right now until we final stats to work with
[14:40] <ccp_fozzie> Not entirely no, but I also don't think we need to nerf them as much as some people are assuming
[14:40] <jintaan> Well, in that case I'd like to ask how can we differentiate the HAC combat role from the T3C combat role. What should a HAC be able to do that a T3C can't, alá the Lachesis' range?
[14:41] <jintaan> (That's not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don't know, as right now T3s have Range + Tank + Sig + Fitting + Utillity down.)
[14:42] <frsd> HACs get mwd bonuses that (most) t3s dont but you cant make any use of them
[14:42] <jintaan> The T3s have the option of utilising that MWD bonus if it's ever good
[14:42] <jintaan> Wake Limiter sub
[14:43] <ccp_fozzie> Yup it's an excellent question. At the moment the main differences are on ISK cost and SP cost (through the death cost) plus a number of smaller differences in the specific bonuses that often end up not mattering. That's obviously not enough on its own.
[14:43] <titus.tallang> random idea, give them highly useful utility in exchange for having less-than-hac dps?
[14:43] <jintaan> Skilling into a T3 and a HAC are actually pretty simillar
[14:43] <titus.tallang> like, 10-20% less dps (or worse application?) but instead strong utility racial ewar?
[14:43] <jintaan> I think utillity is the best way to go for differentiating them
[14:44] <titus.tallang> idk if that kind of jack of all trades approach would make them desirable
[14:44] <titus.tallang> would definitely make them distinguished tho
[14:44] <ccp_fozzie> I think we need to both highlight the existing differences (up the cost a bit) and open up new ones. Some that we've already floated are having T3Cs be larger and slower than HACs
[14:44] <jintaan> Kind of a midpoint between HACs and CS'
[14:44] <titus.tallang> that'd feel a bit weird in terms of having them be cruisers though
[14:44] <caprisunkraftfoods> also the prereqs for most of the T3 subsystem skills are generally useful core skills whereas EGU 5 is fairly niche and not likely something you'd train otherwise
[14:44] <ccp_fozzie> I also think it's worth looking at some differentiation between higher raw HP on the T3Cs and higher resists on the HACs
[14:44] <titus.tallang> especially considering their model which doesn't really convey that right...
[14:44] <titus.tallang> actually
[14:44] <titus.tallang> since i think about it
[14:44] <jintaan> Ironically that makes them the actual naval Heavy Cruiser role
[14:44] <titus.tallang> are we getting completely new assets for these new t3s?
[14:45] <titus.tallang> since they're being made to work nice with new engine and whatnot
[14:45] <caprisunkraftfoods> fozzie at least in regards to Eagles vs Rail Tengus and Sacs vs HAM Legions thats largely the case already
[14:45] <ccp_fozzie> No @titus.tallang, they'll be keeping a subset of the same visuals they have now
[14:45] <titus.tallang> > higher raw HP on the T3Cs and higher resists on the HACs
[14:45] <titus.tallang> this is a pretty interesting distinction that we could emphasize
[14:45] <jintaan> Right now don't T3s have basically T2 resists?
[14:45] <jintaan> Or better
[14:45] <titus.tallang> yes but no resist bonus
[14:45] <titus.tallang> as capri says, sacs vs ham legions
[14:45] <ccp_fozzie> right now T3Cs have HAC level resists
[14:45] <titus.tallang> it's why lowclass loves sacs so much
[14:45] <titus.tallang> we don't care that much about the raw buffer (fights are small scale) and the resists are really good
[14:45] <ccp_fozzie> there's a lot of different levels of advanced ship resistances, with the HAC tier being the highest
[14:46] <caprisunkraftfoods> are we talking higher raw HP or higher EHP overall?
[14:46] <titus.tallang> while the legion is distinct by having like 3 times the overall ehp
[14:46] <jintaan> The thing is resists only matter to a certain degree
[14:46] <titus.tallang> yes
[14:46] <jintaan> If I had a 1m EHP ship with 0 resists, it'd still be incredibly strong in combat
[14:46] <jintaan> Especially at scale
[14:46] <titus.tallang> yes
[14:47] <titus.tallang> but it's a unique distinction that's interesting to keep in mind regardless
[14:47] <jintaan> And EHP is more important than Resists at a fleet level, which is why T3's not having a Sac/Eagle profile right now doesn't affect them being used
[14:47] <jintaan> As you can hold reps on them as long as they survive the cycle
[14:47] <caprisunkraftfoods> the problem with resists at a fleet scale is that, from an FC's point of view, I can always deal with low resists by bringing more (or rather, a higher ratio of my fleet as) logistics, but there's not a lot I can do if my fleet is just getting volleyed before reps can land
[14:47] <titus.tallang> yup
[14:47] <jintaan> Exactly Capri
[14:47] <caprisunkraftfoods> given the choice between resists and EHP, EHP will win in almost all situations
[14:48] <jintaan> Differentiating the resists doesn't help on a fleet scale
[14:48] <titus.tallang> that's mostly a matter of how excessive the gap between hacs and t3s is right now tho
[14:48] <titus.tallang> like, we're talking 2-3 times the ehp on the t3
[14:48] <titus.tallang> right now
[14:48] <caprisunkraftfoods> eh not really
[14:48] <jintaan> Here's an idea, what if we mirrored T3Ds and gave every T3C layout 1 utillity high?
[14:48] <ccp_fozzie> EHP is definitely an area that we are going to need to tone down a little bit more
[14:49] <titus.tallang> our sacs get 88k ehp, random ham legion i have saved gets 161k
[14:49] <titus.tallang> so it's not that far off
[14:49] <jintaan> That adds power in a healthier manner
[14:49] <jintaan> >double the EHP is not far off
[14:49] <jintaan> what
[14:49] <titus.tallang> far off of what i said :stuck_out_tongue:
[14:49] <ccp_fozzie> yup @jintaan things like utility highs can be helpful
[14:50] <ccp_fozzie> there are also some existing areas of Tech 3 flavour like overheating that we can highlight more with their design and make more useful for more people
[14:50] <jintaan> I think it's more interesting to think about how we can give T3Cs more unique power. As we've talked about here, the HK role is something unique to T3Cs, and people generally see it as good, how can we make more of that possible within the class?
[14:51] <jintaan> Hmm... Maybe giving it a bonus to Oheating effectiveness not Oheat abillity?
[14:51] <jintaan> That's something less usable in fleets too
[14:51] <ccp_fozzie> and yes, unique combinations of bonuses like HKs are a pretty key part of the T3C appeal and are really helpful for their design
[14:51] <titus.tallang> actually, since we're on the HK subject, fozzie
[14:51] <ccp_fozzie> Why not both @jintaan :slightly_smiling_face:
[14:51] <titus.tallang> what is the thought process behind wanting cloaky to be a defensive sub now
[14:53] <jintaan> Not opposed to the idea of giving T3Cs strong 'bursts' of power like that, especially given how individually intensive it is
[14:53] <ccp_fozzie> A couple reasons @titus.tallang. When we started the process of reshuffling things to get the smaller number of subsystems we basically ended up deciding whether to put the Cloaking in defensive and Support (bursts+remote rep) in offensive or the other way around
[14:54] <titus.tallang> hrm
[14:54] <caprisunkraftfoods> I'm largely in favour of that because it makes T3 boosting ships viable again
[14:54] <jintaan> Oh, yeah
[14:54] <jintaan> T3C boosting
[14:54] <titus.tallang> if we put support in offensive that means you're exclusively links though
[14:54] <jintaan> Please make it a viable thing
[14:54] <ccp_fozzie> one reason we leaned in the current direction is that there seemed a much stronger use case for cloaking + a normal offensive subsystem than bursts/logi + a normal offensive subsystem
[14:54] <titus.tallang> yeah but cloaking + no normal defensive subsystem is either a) kinda weak
[14:54] <titus.tallang> or b) so strong that you end up with "regular" t3s fitting cloaks
[14:55] <ccp_fozzie> we also feel that we don't need to nerf the cloaky subsystem as much as a defensive sub as we did when it was an offensive sub
[14:55] <noobman> ccp_fozzie [9:53 AM]
[14:55] <noobman> A couple reasons @titus.tallang. When we started the process of reshuffling things to get the smaller number of subsystems we basically ended up deciding whether to put the Cloaking in defensive and Support (bursts+remote rep) in offensive or the other way around
[14:55] <jintaan> @titus.tallang you can easily curtail that though, by having the cloaking sub nerf damage by culling a turret/launcher slot
[14:55] <jintaan> On the latter
[14:55] <titus.tallang> drone proteus?
[14:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> how do you feel about the idea I had earlier of giving the cloaking subs a small(er than current subs) resist bonus
[14:55] <titus.tallang> (if that's a thing after changes)
[14:55] <jintaan> Or drone bandwidth
[14:55] <titus.tallang> just a random thing that came to mind
[14:55] <caprisunkraftfoods> so its not necessarily all or nothing
[14:55] <jintaan> You get what I mean
[14:55] <noobman> i would love to see a better Drone prot
[14:56] <titus.tallang> but a gun nerf on a defensive sub, while making sense from a balance perspective, feels really weird from a thematic one
[14:56] <jintaan> That's design space that's not been explored in general with T3s, the subs giving penalties as well as buffs
[14:56] <ccp_fozzie> @caprisunkraftfoods lately I've been leaning towards a toned down active rep bonus as the tank bonus on the cloaky subsystem
[14:56] <jintaan> I don't think it makes sense with this redesign, but it's something to think about
[14:57] <ccp_fozzie> as it's a bit less likely to get out of control compared to bonuses that impact buffer
[14:57] <noobman> seems like a good pair
[14:57] <frsd> this will enable people to fly cloaky nullified dps t3s
[14:57] <caprisunkraftfoods> yeah that was my original thought too, just thought resist might give you some viability with buffer too
[14:57] <caprisunkraftfoods> that works also
[14:57] <ccp_fozzie> yup @frsd
[14:57] <jintaan> Makes sense, as the cloaky sub still gave some bonus to DPS previously
[14:58] <ccp_fozzie> we have a few tools for dialing the defensive strength of the cloaky subsystems
[14:58] <noobman> we gotta make sure the neut legion will be presevered
[14:58] <noobman> such a good ship
[14:58] <ccp_fozzie> things like choosing exactly what defensive bonuses to give it, as well as base HP levels and even the distribution between the types of base HP
[14:58] <caprisunkraftfoods> another thing that's come up in almost every "lets pretend T3s aren't viable anymore" theoycrafting conversation I've had with people in both k-space and w-space is that command ships tend to be a better drop in replacement for roles currently filled by mainline DPS T3s than HACs are. I know you've made changes in the past with the view to making command ships more viable DPS ships, is that something you're happy with?
[14:59] <titus.tallang> cloaky active tank bonus is reasonable as long as it's weaker for pve applications
[14:59] <ccp_fozzie> so if we make a subsystem with more of the HP concentrated in the main tank type we get something stronger for fleets and bring repped, and if we distribute more of the HP to the "off-focus" tank types we get buffer that's a bit less useful for fleets
[14:59] <titus.tallang> cloaky siterunning t3s sound a tad obnoxious to deal with
[15:00] <lanyaie> Depending on how strong the tank is, it might not even be viable.
[15:00] <lanyaie> The stratios already exists.
[15:00] <caprisunkraftfoods> even if T3s remain perfectly good ships, toning down the EHP will definitely make command ship doctrines more common
[15:00] <ccp_fozzie> We'd be fine with more people flying command ships after these changes, if that comes to pass we'll keep an eye on exactly how popular they become and adjust if needed
[15:01] <jintaan> I don't think CS doctrines being more popular is bad
[15:01] <jintaan> They can be fought very effectively by T1 BS
[15:02] <jintaan> (Obviously you then have the Pirate BS issue, but that's a question for another time I think)
[15:03] <caprisunkraftfoods> yeah I mean, my entire thought process here is the under assumption that something is going to be done about pirate BS prices. Nuanced discussion of T3 balance is largely academic in an era of 300m machariel hulls
[15:03] <jintaan> Yeah, AutoMachs are right now the kings of dunking T3s
[15:04] <titus.tallang> i'm just wondering whether active tank bonused full damage cloaky t3s wouldn't be a tad powerful for solo hunting
[15:05] <titus.tallang> (and if they are, whether this would be a bad thing)
[15:06] <caprisunkraftfoods> it's probably fine. generally speaking when you're solo hunting with a cloak, the only thing you're engaging is PVE ships and the odd gate camping sabre. Anything with teeth is going to take a solo hunting T3 to the cleaners
[15:06] <frsd> cloaky dps t3s are going to be impossible to catch, atleast currently by fitting cloaks you are unable to do any real dps
[15:07] <frsd> these things would be super annoying
[15:08] <jintaan> That's a nullification issue though
[15:08] <jintaan> And a larger interdiction issue
[15:08] <jintaan> I'm not a fan of nullification in general on any combat capable ship in its current form (specifically to all bubbles, not just static ones)
[15:09] <titus.tallang> hmm
[15:09] <titus.tallang> completely random brainfood: sig radius penalty on covops sub
[15:10] <frsd> sig on a "ganking" ship doesn't really matter
[15:10] <jintaan> If you're going to light a cyno it doesn't matter either
[15:11] <titus.tallang> missile formula
[15:11] <jintaan> Except to missiles I guess
[15:11] <titus.tallang> such as fighters
[15:11] <jintaan> True
[15:11] <titus.tallang> it also makes you easier to tackle (though only if you fuck up admittedly, the nulli issue)
[15:11] <jintaan> We should also bear in mind that T3s are going to have their sig increased anyway
[15:11] <frsd> HK tengu doing 0m/s is already getting almost full dmg from a carrier, specially a ratting one
[15:11] <titus.tallang> hmm i wonder
[15:12] <titus.tallang> @ccp_fozzie do we have the technical capabilities to distinguish between kinds of nullification?
[15:12] <titus.tallang> so could we hypothetically have t3 nulli sub only nullify static (anchored) bubbles, but not active (hic/dic) ones?
[15:12] <caprisunkraftfoods> I'm fairly sure they've maintained that nullification should always be a binary
[15:12] <jintaan> I've had this discussion a fair few times
[15:12] <jintaan> And, yes, they don't want to add more layers of exceptions
[15:13] <ccp_fozzie> Many things are technically possible with enough work, but the bigger issue is player understandability
[15:13] <jintaan> I generally think that what you're getting at there Titus would be a great addition
[15:13] <titus.tallang> dunno if the concept of "you can ignore static bubbles" is really _that_ hard to understand
[15:14] <caprisunkraftfoods> yes
[15:14] <jintaan> It's something that I've argued for a lot, especially w/ regards to Interceptors
[15:14] <caprisunkraftfoods> you'd be amazed, I'm still having to explain to people what the deal is with the new HIC scripts
[15:15] <caprisunkraftfoods> and I know who people who've only realised you can now tackle something thats in siege despite that being a thing for over a year now
[15:15] <titus.tallang> yes, but that's not a matter of them being unable to comprehend it
[15:15] <titus.tallang> it's an issue of people being lazy fucks and not bothering to try and keep up
[15:15] <caprisunkraftfoods> sure in that case but that line of logic is a slippery slope
[15:16] <sturm_gewehr> Game already has a steep learning curve.
[15:16] <ccp_fozzie> Making the game as accessible and understandable as possible is CCP's responsibility. It's not something we have always or do always excel at, but that is all the more reason to focus on it.
[15:16] <sturm_gewehr> Although if they were to add a static bubble exception, make it a different color.
[15:17] <caprisunkraftfoods> well we already have different bubble colours
[15:17] <caprisunkraftfoods> anchored bubbles are green
[15:19] <jintaan> I'd be interested in finding some way to judge just how unintuitive it is to say "this ship avoids static interdiction" vs "this ship avoids all interdiction"
[15:20] <jintaan> But it's hard to find people who aren't familliar with the concept
[15:28] <eustise> moving forward, trying to at least not engage in the practice of footnote changes will do well for the general ability of the game to be understood, tldr as few 'use x to do y, except in cases of z and q, but not in h, for h you gotta check the wiki and let's not talk about p, no one knows if p is a feature or a bug'
[15:29] <titus.tallang> there is no wiki anymore
[15:29] <titus.tallang> but yeah, on a serious note, i'm just not sure if specifying _static_ interdiction would really be a "footnote" change
[15:30] <titus.tallang> I mean, we'd go from> *Role Bonus:* Immune to Interdiction Sphere Launcher, Warp Disruption Field Generator and Mobile Small, Medium and Large Warp Disruptor
[15:30] <titus.tallang> to> *Role Bonus:* Immune to Mobile Small, Medium and Large Warp Disruptor
[15:31] <caprisunkraftfoods> that's fairly meaningless, you'd be breaking with 8 years of convention
[15:32] <eustise> [shield slaves]
[15:33] <eustise> in any case, the merit or lack of it regarding how nullification works is not the goal of this conversation, just maybe if it's a good idea to be a viable path on a T3C or not
[15:33] <jintaan> Nullification was put in fairly recently though
[15:33] <jintaan> Like... 2013/4? IIRC
[15:34] <jintaan> I'm pretty sure it wasn't a thing in 2012, but my memory is pretty hazy
[15:35] <caprisunkraftfoods> well t3s were added 2009
[15:35] <caprisunkraftfoods> I was basing it off that
[15:35] <caprisunkraftfoods> its definitely been a thing as long as I've played
[15:35] <caprisunkraftfoods> it was added to inties right at the end of 2013
[15:36] <ccp_fozzie> Yes nullification was added in 2009
[15:36] <sturm_gewehr> If CCP is keeping sp loss, more unique capabilities like nullification are a way to justify it.
[15:36] <jintaan> Ah, my bad.
[15:38] <sturm_gewehr> If it is made easier to get use out of sub switching, particularly mid roam, to switch between a safe travel and combat setup, that would give t3s an additional unique niche.
[15:39] <sturm_gewehr> It's doable now, just a bit difficult.
[15:39] <eustise> i don't know about you, but i've been depoing between three different fits for ages
[15:40] <sturm_gewehr> I am talking about post changes where we are discussing removing some of its nullification.
[15:40] <eustise> what problem would that really solve?
[15:41] <eustise> nothing that i can't see be solved by just making it brickier to align
[15:41] <white0rchid> To some of the points above - I'm not sure nerfing something like ahacs enough will suddenly throw everyone into cs
[15:42] <white0rchid> The skill disparities are huge
[15:43] <eustise> i've had that discussion with someone just yesterday
[15:43] <white0rchid> At the moment you'll get larger groups flying things like machs, nightmares or ahacs/Tengus
[15:43] <eustise> CS's are in a more approachable position now, skill wise
[15:43] <steveronuken> CS are a long train. Though I suspect some will have trained into them just to make sure they got it before the changes.
[15:46] <eustise> in any case, point is, once t3cs are removed from the board as a straight up go-to option, in multiple cases, a lot of possibilities open up, like ahacs/bcs in whs
[15:46] <steveronuken> :heart:
[15:48] <eustise> it does indeed seem that the heaviest point of contention right now is the blops and hk usage, but we're all chomping at the bits for details so we can get our pyfa on
[15:49] <white0rchid> It seems a little messy though, I'm not sure the HAC issue will really be solved immediately. They're pretty bad bar maybe one or two for fleet scenarios.
[15:49] <white0rchid> So it'd feel like you're shoe-horning people into worse ships.
[15:52] <sturm_gewehr> Is it really an issue having t3s as the more dominant wormhole subcaps option?
[15:52] <eustise> well, we don't want more ships at the power level of the current t3cs in the game, we have a buttload of ships in game already, but it really shouldn't be thought of 'boo, now we get to play the shittier ships'
[15:52] <eustise> and yeah, it kind of really is, if for the same reasons svipuls and ishtars were annoying
[15:52] <white0rchid> No and I get what you are saying, but I'm simply stating that if we remove T3Cs from all use cases, HACs are still kinda bad
[15:52] <eustise> just that in this case it's been a years-running meta
[15:52] <white0rchid> Everyone will just use machs then
[15:53] <sturm_gewehr> Thematically And having good punch for their mass?
[15:53] <eustise> faction BSs in WHs have the matter of mass
[15:54] <eustise> they're used for more static defense/offense, but for general 'balls to the wall comp' it's really t3cs, no matter how much you struggle
[15:55] <white0rchid> Yes, but we're not just talking of wormholes here
[15:56] <white0rchid> So that's maybe fine for wormholes, but the rest of eve will most likely just sack off ahacs if they become bad enough
[15:56] <sturm_gewehr> Hacs aren't terrible as a class for smaller affairs.
[15:57] <sturm_gewehr> Some of them are designed to be better for small scale fights instead of large scale.
[15:57] <white0rchid> No, they're not at all
[15:57] <white0rchid> For fights under 30 people per side, they're probably just fine
[15:58] <eustise> for null, t3cs aren't really as cut and dry as they're in wh's, you can get away with some faction BSs as 'apex fleets' and you have a lot more tactical flexibility in what to field
[15:58] <white0rchid> And unless we're talking things like max coward cerb fleets, there are many other HACs that will just not cut it in kspace
[15:59] <sturm_gewehr> So the issue becomes, do we/CCP want hacs back for large fleets.
[15:59] <sturm_gewehr> And how do we account for them in t3 rebalance.
[15:59] <eustise> i think we're moving off base here a bit, we're not talking about 'fixing' the entire meta
[15:59] <eustise> and i don't think we should account for anything else but the actual T3Cs themselves here
[16:00] <white0rchid> I'm not saying we are, but you also can't sit inside a bubble and disregard the knock on effect it will have
[16:00] <sturm_gewehr> I don't know of it is that simple because t3s overlap with several different ship types.
[16:00] <eustise> worse case scenario, we'll use different ships and maybe have a lower power level per fleet
[16:01] <eustise> no matter what will take up the mantle
[16:01] <white0rchid> >and i don't think we should account for anything else but the actual T3Cs themselves here
[16:01] <white0rchid> Completely disagree on that one though. We have to take these things into consideration so we can understand the full picture
[16:02] <white0rchid> Feigning ignorance to the rest of the meta could end us in a bad place.
[16:04] <sturm_gewehr> If this was a jf rebalance thread I could sort of understand that line of thought, t3cs might be the worst class to disregard the meta.
[16:10] <lemkorgengod> T3s arent the only thing affecting HACs. The price of faction battleships is also a big player in why they dont get used much
[16:10] <sturm_gewehr> And BCs.
[16:12] <lemkorgengod> So a nerf to T3s wont have any effect, HACs need a buff or a new role/bonus to make them more attractive.
[16:13] <sturm_gewehr> Which then leaves us with whether or not we should want to somewhat preserve the current brick tanked large fleet fits.
[16:13] <eustise> it's not ignorance as much as care-taking instead of driving, we're not picking what gets to be the next 'good' ship, we're going to try to put T3c's in a place where you'd go 'hmm' stroking your beard over choosing between them and other ships for an hour
[16:15] <eustise> so yes, maybe the current way we're doing fleets thanks to t3cs will die or morph into something else, but we're not here to preserve the status quo, we're just here to help make the choice 'muddy' when it comes to them
[16:16] <sturm_gewehr> Putting t3cs on a power level of hacs, especially with CCP supporting sp loss, for large scale conflicts seems like it would remove options, not add them.
[16:16] <eustise> if HACs need love, and some of them do, it'll be tackled at another point in time
[16:17] <sturm_gewehr> But what if CCP wants to tackle them by redesigning hacs to be less useful in large fleets?
[16:18] <white0rchid> I'm simply stating that if you make AHAC (T3) fleets redundant, you'd only be adding the machariel meta.
[16:18] <eustise> 'in the t3c rebalance we decided to give all hacs 25% more dps and tank'
[16:18] <eustise> that's not how it works.
[16:18] <eustise> :stuck_out_tongue:
[16:18] <sturm_gewehr> Ah, I missed that footnote.
[16:19] <eustise> if it's not the machariel meta it will be something else
[16:19] <sturm_gewehr> But that may not be enough to compete with machs.
[16:19] <sturm_gewehr> I need to check numbers.
[16:19] <eustise> again, not the point of concern here, we're here specifically to see how the t3cs fit in the eve of tomorrow, not to forecast the new meta
[16:26] <lemkorgengod> So the questions really are....
[16:26] <lemkorgengod> Do we want to still have T3s as a AHAC fleet concept or do we envisage a selection of more unique niche roles. If it is the latter, what roles? We have only really spoken about the hunter/killer, but what else?
[16:26] <lemkorgengod> And if it is the latter how does it fit into CCPs vision of a ship that can easily change between roles.
[16:30] <frsd> If t3s lose their f1 role it may affect wormhole pve p hard
[16:37] <eustise> i'll wait for hard numbers before i start theorycrafting if i can still run 10/10s in a tengu or soak a null ghost site blast and npc's
[16:52] <caprisunkraftfoods> without getting into too much nigglys of HK's theorycrafting, the problem with any alternative to T3s in whs is that no other option gets the same raw DPS
[16:52] <caprisunkraftfoods> damnations have a sick tank, but shite damage comparitively
[16:53] <caprisunkraftfoods> sacs lack tank AND dps even if you throw implants and bling at the problem
[16:53] <caprisunkraftfoods> and any shield platform is just gonna get rekt by neuts
[16:55] <mawderator> capqu are you ready for 5.2 au/s t3cs
[16:55] <mawderator> casually have triple hyperspatials and then swap to trimarks/cdfes
[16:56] <mawderator> wrong cap- name
[16:57] <caprisunkraftfoods> oi vey
[16:57] <mawderator> on that note, what kind of restrictions does CCP have in mind of swapping rigs in space
[16:58] <caprisunkraftfoods> ya we're looking forward to refitting our heavy armor legions to hyperspatials
[16:58] <mawderator> if any
[17:01] <mawderator> is this something we'd be able to do off of a hull with a ship maintenance array like a nextor/mobile depot
[17:01] <frsd> there are currently no limits to refitting
[17:01] <frsd> and afaik you can fit rigs from a depot?
[17:01] <frsd> so probably none
[17:01] <caprisunkraftfoods> maybe we need refit fatigue
[17:01] <frsd> you might be on to something
[17:02] <lemkorgengod> Swapping a armor brawling loki to a shield kity one :joy:
[17:06] <eustise> well, cargo space and rig sizes may be in the air
[17:07] <eustise> but atm a full refit is taxing to carry around, with the added depo
[17:07] <mawderator> I'm aware you can refit rigs currently, I'm asking if that's something they want to restrict at all given that the rigs would not be destroyed
[17:07] <eustise> and give up if you want to have a 100m3 cloak extra to the covops
[17:09] <rowells> damn, the scrollbgack is real today
[17:09] <sturm_gewehr> And we haven't really started.
[17:10] <mawderator> plenty of doctrines mandate full highslot and midslot refits off of a nestor as is
[17:11] <eustise> i'm also interested in the mass changes specifically due to higgs refitting, a heavier t3c that can, at will with a depo/nestor, wage mass warfare on holes is neat to think about but i worry about the practice of it
[17:13] <rhiload> clever use of game mechanics
[17:20] <eustise> might be fun once or twice, but when you can stop a chase whenever you want throwing 20 heavy higgsd new t3cs, it'll make for a sucky envirnoment to fight in/with, but it may be overblown
[17:20] <rowells> idk if the rig refitting will be as big an issue really
[17:21] <rowells> you've still got combat timers to deal with, and unless you can go full T3 support, cant leave T2 ships out of the picture
[17:47] <icarus_narcissus> So CCP is aiming for tech 3 to be flexible ships that can fulfill niche roles without overshadowing the core roles currently (intended to be) occupied by tech 2 ships?
[17:53] <starfleetcommander> i think that sounds right?
[17:53] <icarus_narcissus> On the PvP side, hunter-killer and covert command/logistics come to mind...
[17:53] <starfleetcommander> keep the niche roles are imporant
[17:54] <rowells> like mining
[17:55] <starfleetcommander> lol
[17:55] <icarus_narcissus> On the PvE side, I think it would make sense thematically if they were the ultimate exploration ship when fitted correctly
[17:56] <eustise> ^ exactly why i'm here
[17:56] <eustise> it ain't a joking matter, i ran a 'niche' t3c explo fit for the better part of four years when i was on and offing, soloing pve across all space
[17:56] <rowells> honestly they might just do same thing in terms of PVE as they do PVP (generalization)
[17:57] <eustise> nah, for WH stuff a Rattle is always a better choice
[17:57] <eustise> for krabbing your sites in null, a faction BS is again a better pick due to clear speed
[17:58] <rowells> well, yeah thats expected
[17:58] <icarus_narcissus> Hunter killer and exploration are two sides of a misshapen coin
[17:58] <eustise> but in explo's case, given the lacklustre 'endgame' representation explo has
[17:58] <rowells> basically that. thats why tengus and prots are popular for escalation runners
[17:59] <eustise> you're mostly stuck with a strat if you're discounting t3cs and it's really not flexible enough, let alone the lack of nullification
[17:59] <eustise> but i will be fair, given i never lost my explo proteus does speak to the too-good-survivability
[18:00] <eustise> i think lowering its maneuverability is the best way to counter the nullification bonus, this as a guy that has been on both sides of nullified ships
[18:20] <icarus_narcissus> I think another important part of flexibility and exploration utility is more cargo. Nullification should come with an agility hit, definitely.
[18:20] <eustise> the current limits seem just tight enough imho
[18:23] <titus.tallang> right now, even if you decloak it almost instantly, by the time it becomes visible on overview again + you lock it + point cycles it's likely in warp either way
[18:23] <eustise> my memory is fuzzy but my prot had like 4-5 seconds align time?
[18:25] <titus.tallang> yeah, so you hit align, become visible, that's a second right there
[18:25] <titus.tallang> they approach you and you get decloaked, that's, what, 2 seconds if we're underestimating
[18:25] <titus.tallang> then they have another 1-2 seconds to lock you and point you
[18:25] <titus.tallang> because it takes 1 second before you show on overview again
[18:40] <icarus_narcissus> There are two factors that influence align times -- mass and inertia. Say setting the interdiction nullification to penalize inertia and the cloaking to increase mass, using both together would be more balanced maybe?
[21:00] <exooki> I know ccp hates unique stuff, but I dislike the idea of a t3 that can refit it's higgs at will
[21:01] <ccp_fozzie> Well it'll need a fitting service at least
[21:02] <icarus_narcissus> Higgs that can be refit on a cruiser scares me as a low class wormhole
[21:02] <exooki> It will, but that doesn't raise the bar
[21:03] <icarus_narcissus> Given the intended flexibility, any T3Cs not carrying depots will be doing it wrong
[21:06] <exooki> Id like to see cloaked nullified t3s easier to catch
[21:06] <asher_elias> I'm doing a townhall with goons trying to hear all their concerns with T3Cs right now
[21:07] <exooki> That sounds awful
[21:07] <ccp_fozzie> thanks
[21:07] <asher_elias> this may shock everyone, but different people have different concerns, but I'm trying to mark down the ones with the most consensus
[21:08] <icarus_narcissus> @noobman can we get an official wormhole one going? I would, but your word carries more weight.
[21:08] <exooki> Do we have a list of main points of discussion or needing input? I was going to throw up threads on the wormhole reddit
[21:08] <exooki> But I'm still not sure exactly what points were weighing in on, high level is likely yo,be unconstructive
[21:09] <icarus_narcissus> Agreed
[21:09] <noobman> https://ccpfocusgroups.slack.com/archives/G5JMEEE05/p1496092128076627
[21:09] <noobman> same
[21:10] <exooki> I can gather concerns/thoughts but many are likely to be irrelevant against the actual plan
[21:16] <asher_elias> I presume Fozzie and his crew want us to share all our concerns and they will sort through what they can prioritize and what they can't
[21:25] <exooki> It's usually the other way around though, ccp shares a tough draft. Maybe with some open spots and room for input, but waiting for us to just openly vent out thoughts isn't likely to drive real progress, since ccp already has a tough plan of what they want, we're really only steering fine details
[21:45] <ccp_fozzie> I've got a working spreadsheet with some proposed bonuses for subsystems and a few other changes, already been incorporating some ideas from this channel into it
[21:46] <white0rchid> Nice, sounds good.
[21:46] <ccp_fozzie> I'll look into putting it online where it can be viewed tomorrow so you guys can comment on it
[21:46] <ccp_fozzie> it's definitely a rough draft though, just covers some stats so far
[21:47] <ccp_fozzie> Not saying this is what we'll necessarily do, but if Higgs become an issue it might be worth considering just blocking them from T3Cs in the future
[21:47] <ccp_fozzie> just one option to consider
[21:48] <white0rchid> I think the use cases are quite small there in reality. Not sure it would be used a huge amount.
[21:49] <icarus_narcissus> Higgs on tech 3s will become yachts with guns.
[21:50] <icarus_narcissus> I'd personally prefer not to relive that
[21:51] <white0rchid> I'd liken them more to platforms with guns, if I'm not mistaken they'll basically be immobile?
[21:52] <lanyaie> Close to immobile, yes.
[21:52] <lanyaie> non prop BS level speed
[21:52] <lanyaie> on a t3 cruiser.
[21:54] <icarus_narcissus> Well, higgs will be un-fittable with the proposed change to T3Cs being able to remove right without penalty
[21:55] <lanyaie> How much of a problem would it become?
[21:58] <icarus_narcissus> Exo can speak best to what yachts were capable of
[21:58] <frsd> isnt nullficiation removed by the higgs rig?
[21:59] <icarus_narcissus> But T3Cs can remove the higgs at will
[21:59] <icarus_narcissus> And then put it back on
[22:00] <rowells> was it the rig or the ships that had the penalty to higgs added?
[22:00] <frsd> yeah but when you jump through a WH you are going to be far off any ship for refitting and a depot takes 60s, so I don't see how that would come into play when rolling holes
[22:00] <frsd> rig iirc
[22:01] <exooki> The rig removes nullification
[22:02] <exooki> Even without the rig, cloaky, nullified t3s with 100mns are just as capable of rolling whs, and being uncstcheable