[00:42] <mawderator> progodlegend [1:59 PM]
[00:42] <mawderator> dude armor web lokis are literally barely even a blip on the radar of the current fleet meta
[00:43] <mawderator> is this a joke
[00:43] <mawderator> the post patch armor web loki is a non issue imo
[00:59] <mawderator> https://puu.sh/wA8TO/2585e77908.png
[01:00] <mawderator> actually on second thought
[01:28] <mawderator> https://puu.sh/wA9WT/631eb2b6b2.png
[01:29] <mawderator> both are using full command ship bursts
[01:42] <mawderator> as a general trend, I like that the loki drops resists and gains some HP
[01:42] <mawderator> wrt game design
[01:44] <mawderator> 4.6x vs 8.15x average resist and not being able to laugh off any em damage platform
[01:46] <mawderator> also the design choice to give the post patch loki a lower base webbing range while cold
[01:46] <mawderator> but an identical webbing range heated to the current loki
[01:48] <mawderator> Is an excellent choice
[01:50] <mawderator> rewarding better players for better control and use of their modules is a trend I'd like to see more of
[01:51] <asher_elias> hmm I'm thinking my pyfa update isn't working on some things, I'm not seeing any difference between immobility drivers and dissolution sequencer on the loki
[07:39] <white0rchid> It doesn't work @asher_elias
[07:39] <white0rchid> For the web range
[07:39] <white0rchid> Broken
[10:30] <ccp_fozzie> @caprisunkraftfoods a few days ago you mentioned some people you knew were compiling a list of subsystem graphics that they considered unnecessarily swapped/changed
[10:30] <ccp_fozzie> do they have anything that we could see and pass along to the team here?
[10:31] <ccp_fozzie> same request goes out to anyone else as well
[13:44] <ccp_fozzie> Hey folks, I've posted the current draft of the plans for industry changes on the new forums here: https://meta.eveonline.com/t/july-strategic-cruisers/8414/7
[13:45] <ccp_fozzie> I'm interested in your feedback (this draft borrows quite a bit from the stuff you guys were suggesting earlier in the discussion)
[13:48] <white0rchid> I'm no good with industry, maybe @lemkorgengod your area bud?
[14:15] <exooki> @ccp_fozzie any thoughts on making wh data/relic cans explode after 2 failed tries?
[14:16] <exooki> bringing it in line with all other space?
[14:23] <ccp_fozzie> I started opening that box but then the faces started melting off some nearby Nazis so I looked away
[14:23] <exooki> you target an overabundance of relics by slightly reducing their runs, but data items are just as oversupplied, and the only reason run a data site will be this 1 item
[14:23] <exooki> im not sure how to interpret your comment
[14:24] <ccp_fozzie> raiders of the lost ark joje
[14:24] <ccp_fozzie> *joke
[14:24] <ccp_fozzie> yeah a complete rework of exploration loot is just out of scope for a pass like this unfortunately
[14:28] <exooki> oh i got the movie reference, just wasnt sure how it applied to the convo XD. how rare/scarce is the new item going to be?
[14:30] <exooki> my concern is that data sites will only be worth doing while this new item is in high demand, and once the supply overtakes it, theyll become worthless again, as this is the only item in a WH data site's drop table thats worth anything
[14:30] <exooki> will higher class Whs drop more per site?
[14:30] <ccp_fozzie> the new item is part of the salvage tables
[14:31] <ccp_fozzie> the data site changes are a slight reduction in datacore drop rates
[14:31] <exooki> oooh gotcha
[14:32] <exooki> so, in theory datacores from data sites should eventually go up, but that may take a while
[16:29] <ccp_fozzie> Quick update, the earlier version of that post had incorrect faction identification for the new Ladar and Radar components and salvage. I've updated the post now
[16:31] <sullen> LOL @ccp_fozzie that reference
[16:32] <sullen> so when you say that the item is part of the salvage tables. i assume it'll just be dropped at a rate that would balance out everything else' drop rate?
[16:33] <ccp_fozzie> it'll be dropped at a rate to get a supply/demand number fairly equal to most other ancient salvage outputs
[16:33] <ccp_fozzie> based on the number of hulls built and the number of sleepers salvaged over time
[16:42] <sullen> gotcha
[16:47] <lanyaie> @ccp_fozzie Not a noteworthy thing but why 7 for malfunctioning components? That makes for an awkward amount as multiples of 7 don't end on a round number until *10
[16:48] <lanyaie> Although, I guess that's not something important enough to take into account
[16:50] <ccp_fozzie> we looked at it as a -25%/-30%/-33% change respectively for the three classes of relic
[16:50] <lanyaie> Additionally, any specific reasoning as to why the drop rate was decreased instead of material requirements increased for datacores/relics?
[16:51] <ccp_fozzie> largely because the changes that had got us into this supply glut problem were drop rate changes
[16:51] <ccp_fozzie> although demand could have also worked to get the right result
[16:51] <ccp_fozzie> we also have a bit more granularity with drop rates than we do with consumption
[16:52] <ccp_fozzie> although that wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker
[16:52] <sullen> drop rate also means slower effect
[16:53] <lanyaie> Slower actual effect, it's generally the speculation that affects the market immediately as changes are announced.
[16:53] <sullen> where as changing the build requirements = mass hysteria for everyone to build them before the change
[16:53] <sullen> speculation will always be there
[16:53] <sullen> but changing the build costs means people will buy/build shit like crazy
[16:58] <sullen> just look at what's going on with faction BS's :smile:
[16:59] <lanyaie> While that's true, I wouldn't really compare faction BS to regular.
[16:59] <lanyaie> T3 building is more complex and actually doesn't require just the basic industry skills and regular materials.
[17:01] <lanyaie> The skill requirements are far too high for everyone to just decide to pump out a couple batches. Those that can are going or already doing so so regardless
[17:07] <sturm_gewehr> @ccp_fozzie can't check myself as on mobile but did you guys end up trying to get a bit more ehp on the active tank subs? A lot of fits went from a bit over 21k down to 15-16k which is a significant foe surviving alpha.
[17:07] <sturm_gewehr> And could be problematic for some pve sites/missions as well.
[17:08] <ccp_fozzie> last changes in that regard were when we added more base HP to the Tengu a while back @sturm_gewehr
[17:08] <sturm_gewehr> Loki was another problematic one.
[17:08] <ccp_fozzie> there isn't a ton of room to go much higher without actually surpassing the base HP of the buffer subs
[17:09] <sturm_gewehr> Even if they were equal in base hp the buffer subs get a lot of mileage out of extenders and plates.
[17:09] <sturm_gewehr> And heated resisits.
[17:10] <sturm_gewehr> On buffer/active fits for pvp I am leaning more towards buffer subs in general because the ehp difference is so substantial and resist overheat bonus goes a long way to helping the active tank.
[17:11] <sturm_gewehr> If you are worried about too much ehp similarity, maybe consider active tank subs getting a sig radius reduction?
[17:12] <ccp_fozzie> the do right now (it's just in the form of a sig radius penalty on all other defensive subs)
[17:12] <sturm_gewehr> Right on.
[17:15] <sturm_gewehr> At least keep an eye on it, because some fits lost quite a bit of ehp and alpha has become a very real concern for these expensive ships.
[17:15] <sturm_gewehr> And it's not something that can be easily compensated for with fitting.
[17:16] <sturm_gewehr> And if you do, passive sub ends up being very compelling over active sub.
[17:17] <titus.tallang> > the do right now (it's just in the form of a sig radius penalty on all other defensive subs)
[17:17] <titus.tallang> sounds like something that'd be clearer as a bonus on one sub
[17:17] <titus.tallang> rather than a penalty on all subs but the one
[17:17] <ccp_fozzie> well it's a different strength penalty on the other two subs
[17:18] <ccp_fozzie> so either way two subs will need to have text and one won't
[17:18] <ccp_fozzie> so in that case we went with addition
[17:49] <sturm_gewehr> Out of curiosity, what was the intention behind giving loki 7/7/3 and 7/3/7 loadouts instead of 7/6/4 > 7/4/6.
[17:49] <sturm_gewehr> Minmatar ships aren't usually that imbalanced with slots.
[17:50] <ccp_fozzie> they're generally less imbalanced than amarr and caldari
[17:50] <sturm_gewehr> Plenty of exceptions exist though.
[17:51] <ccp_fozzie> and the most extreme versions of this Loki are indeed less imbalanced in slot layouts vs the most extreme versions of the Legion and Tengu
[17:51] <sturm_gewehr> 4 mids is pretty restrictive for armor pvp.
[17:52] <sturm_gewehr> You can't do t3 versions of stabber fleets with dual prop, injector scram, or prop mod, scram, web, injector.
[17:54] <ccp_fozzie> 7/4/6 is possible with this Loki
[17:55] <sturm_gewehr> Not with web sub at least.
[17:55] <ccp_fozzie> no not with the web sub
[17:55] <ccp_fozzie> but you just mentioned dual prop injector scram
[17:55] <sturm_gewehr> Which is fine, there are more slot layouts than the ones I listed.
[17:55] <sturm_gewehr> But why the extremes?
[17:56] <sturm_gewehr> Instead of 7/7/3 > 7/3/7, why not 7/6/4 > 7/4/6?
[17:56] <sturm_gewehr> As the range.
[17:57] <ccp_fozzie> allowing greater extremes allows more variety in available layouts
[17:57] <ccp_fozzie> rather than limiting people to a smaller set of overlapping slot layouts
[17:59] <sturm_gewehr> I can see that opening up available slot layouts, but being very restricting on available bonuses.
[18:31] <exooki> im getting feedback from producers that they are concerned that the supply may not be enough now
[18:37] <ccp_fozzie> supply of relics? or of some of the manufacturing inputs?
[18:51] <exooki> yes
[18:52] <exooki> couple people produce on the scale of 100+ wrecked relics a day
[18:53] <exooki> with the run reduction, hell need to swap to malf/intact to be able to keep the same supply ( job limit), and hes not sure the market has that much
[18:54] <exooki> problem is compounded int hat currently, relics are worthless
[18:54] <exooki> no one in high class space actually hacks the cans/relics
[18:54] <exooki> maybe thatll change
[19:09] <ccp_fozzie> yeah sounds like the second problem can only change if people start getting close to the first problem
[19:17] <asher_elias> @ccp_fozzie When you make a drop change do you have a rough price range in your head that you are aiming for or do you just want to increase the relative price?
[19:18] <asher_elias> I don't have a horse in this race, I'm just wondering what the design process is
[19:21] <ccp_fozzie> we don't usually target specific prices
[19:39] <icarus_narcissus> Ohhhh, industry numbers. I will start looking them over
[21:07] <sullen> @sturm_gewehr one of the problems with dropping the mids on the loki much more is that it relegates the sub to only one form of tanking
[21:43] <white0rchid> I will add one more thing in here
[21:43] <white0rchid> In that I feel that with how close some of these T3s are getting to T2 cruisers etc
[21:43] <white0rchid> That the SP loss isn't really as justified now
[21:43] <white0rchid> I understand you want to keep that in there
[21:43] <white0rchid> It's just no longer worth risking the loss of 3+ days training time to fly these things, in my personal opinion
[21:47] <rowells> >In that I feel that with how close some of these T3s are getting to T2 cruisers etc
[21:48] <rowells> this can be interpreted n two very different ways
[21:52] <white0rchid> I understand it was the entire reasoning behind the changes (or mostly at least)
[21:52] <white0rchid> That T3s had become too powerful
[21:52] <white0rchid> But I'm not sure people will feel the 3-5 train is worth it now
[21:53] <white0rchid> Have you looked at doing it a different way? Perhaps lose half a random skill level instead? @ccp_fozzie
[21:53] <white0rchid> Or are you planning on waiting for feedback on it
[21:53] <white0rchid> And seeing if people still use them
[21:53] <white0rchid> As much as before
[21:54] <white0rchid> Or at least not orders of magnitude less
[21:54] <ccp_fozzie> Part of the intention of this design is to get more diversity of ships flying about
[21:54] <white0rchid> Completely get that, and I'm on board with it
[21:54] <ccp_fozzie> and part of that is for some people to decide that they would rather not have the skill loss and therefore choose another ships for that play session
[21:54] <white0rchid> I understand some T3 setups were just too powerful
[21:55] <white0rchid> That's fair, so it is an intention to move some people out of T3s where they would have chosen them beforehand?
[21:55] <ccp_fozzie> yup
[21:56] <white0rchid> Gotcha
[21:56] <ccp_fozzie> obviously if we see that number change too much we can follow up with all options on the table
[21:58] <white0rchid> :thumbsup:
[22:00] <white0rchid> https://meta.eveonline.com/t/strategic-cruisers/8414/86
[22:01] <white0rchid> Some feedback on prot looks
[22:01] <white0rchid> In case it was missed
[22:25] <sturm_gewehr> @sullen the 7 low loki also loses a slot and additional lows can sometimes be used in lieu of rigs to create similar tanks or make the fit more effective overall.
[22:27] <sturm_gewehr> I agree with orchid about the power level reduction not being worth the cost in general, definitely will see more diversity but in the long run I think the power level of t3s will need to increase some to justify the cost. That being said I would rather ship them underpowered than overpowered.
[22:30] <sturm_gewehr> Especially considering a lot of the strong setups were either removed or neutered and some of the new roles like hybrid links/reps aren't worth the cost versus dual boxing a logi and a jetpack link t3d for performance.
[22:41] <exooki> What about reducing reverse engineering success chance on malf and intact, instead of reducing runs?
[22:42] <exooki> If we nerf malfunctioning and wrecked, well still see the increased demand to sustain building, but it won't shove manufacturing into only the better relics, in a possibly unsustainable manner
[22:46] <exooki> Builders are concerned that the new material efficiencies make wrecked worse enough that it's throwing money away to use wrecked
[22:47] <ccp_fozzie> I think I've been speaking to the same builders as you are :slightly_smiling_face:
[22:48] <exooki> Probably, they're pretty concerned :D
[22:49] <ccp_fozzie> I won't rule it out, but this does come back to the issue of flooded supply
[22:50] <ccp_fozzie> in that it's not worth using wreckeds with intacts at their current prices, but that if relic prices adjust then wreckeds become usable again