Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Now is't possible to fit combat probes on t3 in battle fit (by cost of 1 slot usually). With this update its not possible. Why?

Because shields very well can and do fit buffer differently than shields a buffer onyx is fit and used very differently than a passive onyx same with the chimera. A passive will have far higher peak recharge but much lower buffer. Onyx buffer 148-200kehp with 800-2kehp/s recharge vs a passive 80-130kehp with 3k-6kehp/s recharge.


Not to mention armor simply can't passive tank.

So the ecm bonus on the tengue my math is kinda crap when it comes to multiple bonuses and stacking penalties but my attempts show it may be a bit to strong. This would not be an issue if 100% jams were removed but worth how it is and the heat reduction i can see these locking down small gangs of t1 ships

No hacking and scan probe bonus any more?

yeah not sure why the footnote says that
they dont really look that good to me
well proteus is good but its gallente so its expected
loki looks good but still projectiles
tengu and legion look crap

From the dev blog: "The current state of T3 Cruisers is unsustainable from a technical graphics perspective"

You might have considered it, but anyway, here it goes: what if the T3's would be a single racial hull with hardpoints for each subsystem? And each subsystem would add some extra antennas, different nozzles for the engines etc., just like T2's have extra graphical assets vs T1's. This could open up skinning for T3's.

Another (probably silly) idea worth exploring would to make the strategic cruisers be like a Gnosis, with a blanked of roles / slot layout and make each subsystem to behave like a specialized rig that add / removes bonuses and fitting slots / hardpoints. This could open up interesting possibilities, for example like not fitting a prop subsystem in order to get an extra fitting slot somewhere. To make it easier for balance you could remove rig slots altogether.

Humm, it seems that the graphical part needs a better explanation. As I see it, at the moment the T3 hull is just an empty placeholder where you fit different subsystems, each with his own model. So even if you reduce the number of subsystems you still have a lot of graphical combinations. This also means that we'll probably never get T3 skins.

But if you replace that empty placeholder with an actual ship hull and make the subsystems change the look of some small elements like nozzles, antennas etc., the things would get easier for the art department. For example, one could save a lot of work if he would make the weapon subsystem be like a carbon fiber black strip on the hull and you only need to change the number of weapon hardpoints. Another example: it would be like a LEGO ship on which you don't need to change the whole back of the ship (which is a lot of pieces and work to fit everything), but instead you only change the pieces for engine nozzles. You could think at the new T3 to be like an unfitted ship with hardpoints, but instead of placing turrets on those hardpoints you would place subsystems.

You would end up with having to maintain only 4 hull models (which is easier to skin) and the small graphical elements that would be the subsystems.

In regards to discussions about tengu/loki missile subs, why not have the tengu focus more on application, and the loki for raw damage?

Ex: Tengu gets 10-15% damage per level, 5% bonus to missile explo radius, and 10% bonus to missile velocity

Loki gets 7.5% bonus to launcher firing rate and 5% bonus to explosive damage per level, but only to HAMs/heavies. The paper dps on the loki is higher, but applies worse than the tengu.

Application bonuses for weapons are more easily compensated for on a loki since generally it has more lowslots available, and its shield resist profile is more forgiving. Or, if you are running an armor fit, running missile guidance enhancers and/or tracking enhancers. In either case, setting up missile offensive bonuses like that between the two would go well with each of the ships' bonuses and layouts. I could see the full armor missile loki seeing good use in conjunction with the webs, and the missile tengu being spectacularly good with heavy missiles.

in '12 ccp castrated HML by about 10% of dmg (5% they returned lol) and 12% exp rad , so about 25% of applied damage . since then hml become wastly unpopular

so 25% of exp rad might become too op .

i'd start by about 3% exp + 7.5% rof AND 1% to hml\ham damage thus granting 10 eff launchers and kinda old application and 10% velocity

Something that a lot of people may not have noticed that i feel needs to be addressed (if it hasnt already). Cargo space, loki especially had terrible cargo space (sub 300m3). If you want a decent missile loki, it needs to have enough cargo space for its ammo, paste, boosters as needed.

Lets make sure T3Cs get at least equivalent cargo as t3ds (for whatever dumb reason t3ds got so much cargo for a dessie).