Player Features and Ideas Discussion

A thought to consider:

Racial Cruiser V takes 24 days on an omni-specced character with no implants.

In comparison, Logistics V takes 29 days on that same character.

I'm ignoring the time it would take to train the Shield Emission Systems or Remote Armor Repair Systems V, although those make a fair difference as well.

So if you want to put in a time sink before folk can use support cruisers, increase cap use of medium (and small) reppers, then add a Logistics-like cap use bonus to the appropriate racial cruiser skills. So a new player will be able to use a Scythe with only Racial Cruiser IV, but will have to sacrifice tank or somesuch to do so, much as a player currently has to do with the tech-2 logistics.

I don't think this is necessary. These ships will be very useful, especially in cheap cruiser fleets, but they're not going to replace 'real' Logistics ships.

For example. It's all very well to talk about how an AB Scythe will be able to rep at 92km; except that this Scythe will be blown apart on a special priority as soon as it comes within range, because it will have 44% less EHP than a AB Scimitar, and will get 44% less reps than if it and its buddy were Scimitars. And it will have 13% less repping power than a 4-large-repper AB Scimitar, assuming perfect skills.

Overall, playing around with EFT, I've noticed the following, excluding some very specific-use fits. The T1 support cruisers have between 13% and 30% less repping power, about 45% less self-repping power (EHP/s if repped by an identically-fit ship), and between 32% and 54% less EHP, if you're comparing similar fits and ships. That is, if you compare an AB Scythe to an AB Scimitar, or a 5/1 MWD Basilisk to a 4/1 MWD Osprey. It is possible to fit 2 large and 1 medium repper onto an AB Osprey, at the cost of making it absurdly easy to jam or neut. But it will still have 13% less repping power than a similarly-fit 5/1 Basilisk, and half the tank and resilience.

I ran some EFT numbers. The Excel file may be found here. Strongly suggest folk who have not done so play around with the fittings and plug in their numbers, and see what they get.

Absolutely agree: with one best-named ECCM on a Scythe you're looking at a Sensor strength of 25.5 vs 33 for a Scimi. That's Vs a Jam Strength of approximately 10 on a BB (depending on skills, and the precise fit). So you're looking at (rough orders of magnitude) a 2:1 ratio of Sensor Strength to Jam Strength for Scythes and a 3:1 ratio for Scimis.

What's more: fitting an ECCM on a Scimi (with Logi and support skills at 5) is far easier than fitting an ECCM on a Scythe with either Large Reppers or less than perfect skills.

T1 Support cruisers will rep comparably to T2 Logis; however, their survivability and resistance to EWAR are much lower. This means they will work well as Logis but will be easily counterable by a balanced small gang.

scythe reps better than basilisk (3 large reps x 75% bonus = 5.25 effective large reps @ 92km range; 2016 shields every 5sec), is cap stable, faster than ab scimi (771m/s), no tank true but has 2 damps against enemy sniper or ecm platform.


[NEW Scythe, 3 large rr]
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I
Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I

Experimental 10MN Afterburner I
Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Script
Cap Recharger II
Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script
Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I, Targeting Range Dampening Script

Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter
Large S95a Partial Shield Transporter

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I

---

why CCP?

What about a "rolebonus" of 40% increased CPU for fitted large shield transporters ?

Might be the easiest way, without gimping large shield transporters on other ships (as rarely as they are used, but still...).

Not like it matters to terribly much on any of the t1 hulls anyway. ECM in general is broken as fck so you might as well get as much tank as you can before you get jammed by an ibis.

Proposed Tech1 logistics looks way overpowered to me:

1. No other Tech1 cruiser hull have FOUR bonuses to it.
2. No other ship in EVE i know of have 1000% bonus to anything at all, not even titans.
3. Both 1 and 2 are embedded in cheap Tech1.

The only thing that could come is total abuse by everybody everywhere. Compared to "specialized" Tech2 logi, there is not much to be gained for 30x times price increase, so as it is they will pretty much become unused, since its way cheaper AND better to bring 10 augorors than 2 guardians (with lack of resists compensated by huge rep power).

Main problem i see here is that ALL of specialized logistics bonuses of Tech2 logi squeezed into Tech1 hull, without dialing down properly. Imagine Bellicose having role bonus of a Huginn (bonus to web range). Who will fly huginn then? Even with better resists etc. huginn will be simply forgotten since its huge price doesnt offer any solid advantage over huge fleet of bellicoses you can afford for the same price.

People here keep saying that these changes are good, but i see them as way too good, and WAY unbalanced with other cruisers changes in other threads.

Suggestions:
1. Make all bonuses to repair restricted to only medium rep modules. Also tone down the range bonus.
2. Remove second logistic bonus at all (e.g. energy transfer from augoror). Or at least dial it down too, as it is, said augoror have same energy bonuses as guardian (+200% here vs -50% there).
3. Maybe add some other combat related bonuses instead. Tech1 hulls supposed to have more broad uses, as opposed to "specialized" Tech2. (bonus to damage drones, instead of rep ones? bonus to smartbombs(!) to guard against said drones? maybe make a T2 ship dedicated for that too? (1000% bonus to smartbomb range OH SHI....))

In general, please take a look at "Support frigates" thread and do something similar, but for medium rep modules, there is far more sense in that thread than here.

No idea why devs decided that Tech1 logistics should be (almost) as good and narrow as Tech2 in usability (while all other cruisers dont) but i think its a bad idea. Extra few months of training for logistics V and added price of Tech 2 becomes simply not worth it for most people. Please rethink these changes from scratch.

The rep amount and range bonuses might be a bit too much, but just as the e-war cruisers I like were this is headed. Problem is just what this implies for T2 ships when their time comes. Power creep?

I expect that battle cruisers and battleships will be the next ships to be balanced and then T2 hulls will get the balance sweep.

I would guestimate a realistic timeline of about 6 months (summer 2013 expansion) for when they get to rebalancing T2 cruisers. So it's not going to be that long a wait.

You didn't.

The T2s will still have their tiny little sigs and have y'know like a tank.

I'm not crying about my wasted time training logi stuff just yet. I've flown a scimi THROUGH a fleet of 35 oracles and warped out with only 25% shield damage. I doubt I would have managed that with the new T1s.

On the topic of Large Reps, and while rep modules are changed anyway, wouldn't it be interesting to double the standard RR range on all sizes ? (Of course with a 50% range reduction of range boni on logistic ships)

Just to encourage a wider use of RR on unbonused hulls.