[01:42] <rowells> yeah, the above problem is exactly the same on the loki
[02:47] <rowells> is anyone else having difficulties making a decent shield logi?
[02:50] <rowells> it almost seems like neither the loki or tengu can even run logistics without a large battery
[12:07] <frsd> @rowells t3 logi was always cap battery dependant
[13:06] <rowells> but surely it wasnt "cap life is 14 seconds" bad without it tho?
[13:08] <rowells> ill have to look at it again but it sure felt tighter than before in terms of cap strength
[17:07] <sturm_gewehr> Are you trying to use all the high slots for reps?
[17:08] <rowells> I started with four and managed to work out something for 7
[17:08] <rowells> but that battery is irreplaceable by any number of rigs or modules
[17:11] <rowells> I thought it had to be a bug at first because you would go from almost or at cap stable for a fit, then drop into the dumpeter
[17:11] <frsd> faction cap batteries are extremely strong modules
[17:11] <frsd> iirc ccp was looking at toning them down at one point
[17:14] <sturm_gewehr> I don't think they are intended to be able to easily run 7 reps.
[17:17] <rowells> I was having initial difficulties with 4-5. Ended up having to use the web sub to get 7 going for any meaningful amount of time
[17:17] <ccp_fozzie> the reason we went with lots of highslots and a small cap reduction bonus instead of less highslots and a strength bonus is to give people a more gradual set of choices about how many reps to fit
[17:18] <ccp_fozzie> so dropping a rep for a command burst for instance shouldn't be too painful
[17:19] <ccp_fozzie> also allows some of the more off the wall utility setups like the ones @sturm_gewehr linked earlier
[17:20] <sturm_gewehr> It's hard to not use the web sub on shield loki because of the 3 mids it adds.
[17:21] <sturm_gewehr> Using the reactor sub is really hard to use for shield fits.
[17:21] <sturm_gewehr> Ideally I would have the reactor sub give one more mid so with the ab sub it was 7/4/6 and. It 7/3/7.
[17:22] <frsd> the rep loki fit I came up with had the dissolution subsystem iirc
[17:22] <sturm_gewehr> Which is 2/2 mids/lows right?
[17:22] <frsd> think so
[17:23] <frsd> but using the reactor sub was impossible due to -1mid for shield tank
[17:23] <frsd> even though it had better regen
[17:23] <sturm_gewehr> That's another big change I am getting used to.
[17:25] <sturm_gewehr> Having to choose cap/fitting versus ewar/targetting.
[17:26] <sturm_gewehr> Like the tengu used to get great cap, pg and dissolution sub.
[17:27] <sturm_gewehr> I think down the road a lot of attention may need to be given to tuning the slot layouts for some of these ships.
[17:28] <sturm_gewehr> Because going for optimal configurations bonus wise often yields a suboptimal or unviable slot layout.
[17:35] <rowells> Speaking of slots (kind of) is it intended for AB fits to be almost identical or worse on the AB sub than the chassis? Mentioned yesterday that the only major benefit for Wake limiter was the extra midslot
[17:50] <ccp_fozzie> you get a bit more speed with the AB sub, but the difference isn't huge
[17:51] <ccp_fozzie> the slots are definitely the largest difference
[17:54] <sturm_gewehr> The huge difference isn't in speed, it is in slots AND align.
[17:54] <sturm_gewehr> If you use the AB/MWD sig radius sub you only get a single bonus to your prop mod.
[17:55] <sturm_gewehr> If you use the align/speed sub you get use out of both bonuses.
[17:55] <sturm_gewehr> Pretty severe power level discrepancy between the two.
[17:57] <sturm_gewehr> @ccp_fozzie are there any changes from sisi to TQ about SP, SP loss or the attribute modifiers for the T3 skills?
[17:58] <sturm_gewehr> Besides removing the electronic subsytem skill?
[17:58] <ccp_fozzie> nope, just the removal and reimbursement of electronic subsystems
[17:59] <sturm_gewehr> Okay.
[18:01] <sturm_gewehr> Do you guys have any particular thoughts about the SP loss valuing at 1bil isk for the high sp players?
[18:02] <sturm_gewehr> And its impact on cost/balancing the ships?
[18:02] <sturm_gewehr> Post patch the hull and SP loss of a T3 will be less than a marauder.
[18:03] <sturm_gewehr> Which is still the same as now but with the nerfs to stats.
[18:05] <ccp_fozzie> if the cost causes some people to choose other ships, that's absolutely fine
[18:05] <ccp_fozzie> creating those kinds of decisions is why cost does matter
[18:06] <ccp_fozzie> and with the skill loss in particular the most common way of recovering is with the normal skill training process rather than injectors
[18:06] <sturm_gewehr> I know, but there is a market value.
[18:07] <sturm_gewehr> I don't mind it as much in theory as in practice with the reduced power level of these ships.
[18:07] <sturm_gewehr> And the cost being the same.
[18:07] <sturm_gewehr> A few niches will likely come out even or ahead (or be new entirely) but for the majority they come out weaker after this rebalance.
[18:08] <sturm_gewehr> With the exception of class wide mechanics such as "free" probes, rig refitting and subsystem bays (which are quite nice).
[18:09] <ccp_fozzie> moving more of the value of the Strategic Cruiser class into those sorts of thematic and unique benefits and away from raw HP and mobility is a big goal of this rebalance
[18:09] <sturm_gewehr> But consider the actual value of those unique benefits to the players for the cost.
[18:10] <sturm_gewehr> It will make exploration ships a bit better, besides the nerfs many are getting to their stats.
[18:10] <ccp_fozzie> these ships should be valuable because they're different than other options and be chosen when those differences are what a player is looking for, not relying as much on being "like other ships but better"
[18:10] <sturm_gewehr> Because they can compensate by refitting.
[18:11] <sturm_gewehr> For small gang the big benefit is that if you get camped in, as long as you can drop a depot and refit without being probed down you can swap to a travel fit and run the camp far more easily.
[18:11] <sturm_gewehr> But you also lose 20-30% EHP for some fits.
[18:12] <sturm_gewehr> Although the heat bonus on the active tank shield subs with XLASB is kind of hilarious.
[18:13] <sturm_gewehr> What I am getting at is I think the combat power level of the ships, on average, was hit just a tad bit too hard.
[18:13] <sturm_gewehr> Some of the changes, like 10% explosive resists on the loki, don't make sense for a cruiser and feel terrible to try and compensate for.
[18:15] <sturm_gewehr> Getting balanced resists profiles, even with 7 lows, is challenging.
[18:15] <ccp_fozzie> that's from the Loki getting a +HP bonus sub instead of the old resists+remote rep sub
[18:15] <ccp_fozzie> not from a change in base resists
[18:16] <sturm_gewehr> I know, the base explosive resist is stil l10%
[18:16] <sturm_gewehr> from live
[18:16] <sturm_gewehr> But not many people actually used the sig radius sub.
[18:16] <ccp_fozzie> "don't make sense for a cruiser" makes it sound like this isn't normal for a cruiser
[18:17] <sturm_gewehr> I just looked now and thought that the T2 minmatar cruisers had a better resist for explosive thn 10%.
[18:18] <ccp_fozzie> that's what every ship that doesn't have explosive racial resists or a specific resistance bonus gets
[18:18] <sturm_gewehr> Yeah I see that now.
[18:18] <ccp_fozzie> only if they have an armor resistance bonus (like the mimir)
[18:20] <sturm_gewehr> The loki is losing the resist sub on top of weaker base resists, I thought this was reflected in the explosive hole in armor for example but its coming from different resists than that.
[18:20] <rowells> you think adding cap use or fitting bonus to the Wake limiter sub might give it some value?
[18:20] <sturm_gewehr> It was a poor assumption.
[18:20] <sturm_gewehr> It is coming from all the resists besides explosive.
[18:21] <rowells> it should only be two resists that are effected
[18:21] <ccp_fozzie> If we see underuse of the wake limiter subs then yeah we could definitely add bonuses to them
[18:21] <sturm_gewehr> For the loki I am seeing 3 resists in armor.
[18:21] <ccp_fozzie> for instance expanding the heat bonuses to more factions, or increasing base speeds a bit and reducing the speed bonus on chassis optimization to compensate
[18:22] <ccp_fozzie> each race gets two bonus resistances on their T2 and T3 ships
[18:22] <ccp_fozzie> for Minmatar it's EM and Therm
[18:22] <sturm_gewehr> nvm just 2
[18:22] <sturm_gewehr> just em/therm
[18:22] <sturm_gewehr> i was looking at kin with the resist sub before
[18:24] <sturm_gewehr> The resist multiplier went from x1.93 to x1.711 for armor on the loki.
[18:24] <sturm_gewehr> Base.
[18:25] <sturm_gewehr> Which is actually a lot less than what shield lost.
[18:26] <rowells> thos two resists were high to begin with, so the drop will be lower
[18:26] <sturm_gewehr> @ccp_fozzie did you guys looks at trying to give the active tank subs, particularly shield, a bit more to compensate for the huge EHP drop?
[18:26] <sturm_gewehr> so they don't run into alpha problems in PVE and PVP?
[18:27] <sturm_gewehr> I think we talked about it before and you mentioned that giving them some HP, but not enough to revert the changes, was a possibility.
[18:28] <sturm_gewehr> Losing ~25-35% EHP on top of sig increase and loss of mobility is one of the more severe changes for some fits.
[18:31] <sturm_gewehr> Already people are forced into trying to plug holes in the stat nerfs for performance, and make decisions on what they want to try and hold on to, but that is a really significant loss where it is very difficult to compensate via fitting.