[00:03] <caprisunkraftfoods> ok at least one person has come back and said they missed it :stuck_out_tongue:
[02:43] <eustise> m3 changes roundup --- with current most m3 bonusing defensive sub/new m3 base/new m3+covops 30m3 bonus=== Legion 340/400/430 (122% increase between old and bonused+cov) === Tengu 410/460/490 (119%)=== Proteus 320/440/470 (146%) === Loki 300/420/450 (150%)
[02:48] <eustise> and i assume with a 120m3 subsystem bay, we can only fit 3 40m3 subs? any particular reason why we're not putting it at 160m3? might as well fit a whole secondary fit
[02:55] <mawderator> just now getting a chance to read these
[02:55] <mawderator> should have something out tomorrow
[03:00] <eustise> Resists wise, only the two 'stronger' resists got changed-- old(new).. Proteus SHLD[*,60(40),85(70),*] ARM[-,67.5(51.25),83.75(67.5),-] === Loki SHLD[75(50),60(40),*,*] ARM [90(80), 67.5(51.25),*,*] === Tengu SHLD[*,80(60),70(55),*] ARM [*,86.25(72.5),62.5(43.75),*] === Legion SHLD[*,*,70(55),87.5(75)] ARM[*,*,62.5(43.75),80(60)]
[03:01] <caprisunkraftfoods> @ccp_fozzie is the +1H on the proteus localised injector propulsion sub a mistake?
[04:07] <eustise> are we sure we want a static -20km lock range instead of a fixed % penalty? for the ships that pick up the Electronic Efficiency with maxskills, it'd be roughly a 17% penalty(109 vs 89), however, for ships that don't pick that sub, it'd be a 29% penalty (70 vs 50)-- used the new proteus for reference.
[04:29] <eustise> for explo, it's looking relatively dire EHP wise, i see a 38% drop in raw HP across the board, (minus loki? dropped only 20%?), that also meshed with the 17% drop in resistences overall
[04:36] <eustise> i'll have to get my hands on a way to properly calc the new EHPs without recreating pyfa in my stats-sheet, but we may be looking at an absolute necessity to switch to a defensive sub to run any kind of Sleeper/ghost site...
[11:17] <lanyaie> I should be able to quickly modify some things in the pyfa db
[11:17] <lanyaie> will upload later.
[11:23] <frsd> Is it on purpose that the RR bonus is only to medium RR and not all sizes?
[11:23] <frsd> since currently it is that way and you can in theory use small reps etc.
[12:29] <ccp_fozzie> @caprisunkraftfoods yes that +1H was a mistake (should be +1M), fixed it now
[12:30] <ccp_fozzie> @eustise the subsystem stat changes all apply before any percentage bonuses
[12:31] <ccp_fozzie> @frsd yes it's intentional, but the bonuses also make medium reps extremely cheap to fit
[12:50] <exooki> if the new covert ops ship cant run the explo site, maybe they will njust need to refit before running them?
[13:21] <eustise> you already refit for them, the difference being that you can't use the cloak sub while running them anymore
[14:05] <eustise> mobility wise, the new align times seem greatly nerfed, almost double/BS times, that's not taking in consideration the extra penalty from nullification, and while it does make a case for the Chassis Optimisation system, it just seems a tad much.. current T3Cs go for around 6s (minus 4-5s tengu), so turning all of them up to 10-11 is overkill, 8-9 would be a significant nerf enough (ps: tengu gets the shitter mobility in the new system? 11.2s align versus ~10.3 the rest)
[14:17] <ccp_fozzie> whenever we post numbers like those we do it before skills
[14:19] <eustise> and that's why i need to drink my coffee in the morning.
[14:20] <ccp_fozzie> for comparison, the posted align time numbers are a little bit better than hictors
[14:20] <ccp_fozzie> a bit worse than hacs
[14:22] <eustise> yeah, working off 0 skills pulls the math up properly
[14:30] <caprisunkraftfoods> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eCXXswjqUv3G-MCc7qXooh5d9A86X8WLdZFJVzFLie8/edit?usp=sharing
[14:30] <caprisunkraftfoods> this spreadsheet calculates the base stats and slot layouts
[14:30] <caprisunkraftfoods> just make a copy and you can edit it
[14:41] <eustise> @ccp_fozzie are those hull mass stats now unchanged by any other sub?
[14:43] <ccp_fozzie> yup this version doesn't have any mass modifiers on subs
[14:44] <eustise> well, it'll 'lighten' WH fits.. my 20 mil kg legions now get to 14.5, which won't do a thing to T3C prefference in WH's compared to battleship doctrines
[14:45] <eustise> just thought we'd be getting heavier T3Cs as well apart from just the effectiveness nerfs
[14:46] <caprisunkraftfoods> the mass nerf is gonna effect like PL/NC/CO2/etc taking large t3 fleets through wormholes far more than it's going to affect anyone who actually lives in w-space
[14:48] <eustise> either way, under the current setup, you get 1 free T3C to jam through a wormhole for every 3 compared to now :stuck_out_tongue:
[14:49] <ccp_fozzie> what fits are you comparing to?
[14:51] <eustise> https://pastebin.com/88AaFX3n
[14:52] <eustise> 18 without the plate, sure
[14:55] <ccp_fozzie> 12.8 without the plate and with the MWD turned off
[18:43] <sturm_gewehr> @sturm_gewehr pinned a message to this channel.
[18:43] <sturm_gewehr> [June 17th, 2017 2:37 PM] ccp_fozzie: Those are the current pass on stats and bonuses with one document per ship
[18:44] <sturm_gewehr> @ccp_fozzie no pg fitting bonus on the ab subs, intentional or no?
[18:46] <sturm_gewehr> No pg fitting bonus on ab subs, intentional or mistake?
[18:47] <ccp_fozzie> PG fitting bonus on the ab subs is something we've been considering but we haven't decided if we want to do it
[18:48] <ccp_fozzie> I'm not ruling out adding it
[18:51] <sturm_gewehr> Okay, I am still concerned about lack of room for lowslot pg modules for some of the shield 100mn, especially loki and tengu, will put together fits with these stats and see what happens.
[18:51] <sturm_gewehr> Also, what are your current thoughts about changing neut legion bonuses to include range?
[19:36] <asher_elias> presumably a range bonus would be stronger in null fleets, a suck bonus would be better in WHs
[19:36] <asher_elias> right now there isn't a great neuting platform outside the bhaal/geddon
[19:36] <asher_elias> recons are too squishy
[20:08] <caprisunkraftfoods> range bonused neut legions would be monstrously OP in wormholes
[20:08] <caprisunkraftfoods> you get the range with bhaals/geddons, but you're also limited with mass, so its a meaningful fleet composition choice
[20:09] <caprisunkraftfoods> or let me rephrase that, any bonus that made them worthwhile in k-space would be monstrously OP in wormholes
[21:34] <sturm_gewehr> would range bonus with something like mostly falloff and a weaker strength bonus still make it monstrously OP?
[21:35] <sturm_gewehr> Like falloff only and duration bonus, maybe with cap efficiency bonus to offset some of the increased cap cost?
[21:35] <sturm_gewehr> that way at range they won't be as useful for neuting out large ships and still need to close distance to get their max value.
[22:53] <sturm_gewehr> But for small gang the quick cycling and falloff still makes it useful for neuting out smaller tackle ships, like interceptors, at range.
[22:55] <sturm_gewehr> Curse/bhaal/geddon still outperform it at their optimals for raw cap neuting, can even reduce or remove the cap use bonus and keep cycle time to make cap stable neut fits more difficult.