Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Many thanks for this. The ability to function while fitting a MWD and MJD is welcome and satisfies my concerns over mobility.

also i think marauders should get a role bonus to remove the sensor resolution penalty on the Target spectrum breaker mod.

I would like to reiterate my strong support of these new ships. I'd also like to address a few recurring topics.

Drones:
Many people are saying that their reduced drone bay (not bandwidth) is going to be harsh. I'm assuming that they are referring resupplying in hostile space (not your sov 0.0 or maybe even npc sov). I personally don't see the major issue with this as you have a fairly large cargo bay. While this would not solve the issue if you are in space you can not dock in, I find it rather unlikely you will have one of these ships in undockable space without carrier support.

Damage:
Please read EVE UNI's turret damage wiki article before continuing. I keep seeing people talk about how these monsters are going to lose damage and be over tanked. I think that as they are they appear extremely balanced and well thought out. Why? Projection and stationary.

Projection is a complicated issue, and is poorly understood by many within the EVE community. Because it is hidden, and because the formula is balls complicated, many people pass it off as something that can be ignored and decide to focus on raw paper dps instead. This is a horrible, horrible mistake. I am a minnie pilot and have spent a considerable amount of time reading about projection, and while I don't proclaim to be an expert, I can say with conviction that projection bonuses are vastly superior to damage bonuses in my opinion (on battleships). Just as we have EHP/ raw HP we have Applied DPS/ raw DPS.

It is fairly well understood that at "max falloff" (optimal plus falloff) you are doing 50% of paper dps. As a GENERALIZATION this scales almost linearly throughout falloff (so at half of falloff you are getting -25% of paper dps). What is often not accounted for is the SAME APPLIES TO TRACKING. This means that the target is moving at half of your max tracking you are also getting another -25% to applied damage. How often as pilots are you orbiting a target at ~50% of max falloff? For me it's pretty often. Under these "normal" conditions we can expect almost a 50% reduction in paper dps. The bonuses proposed on these new ships are absolutely amazing in my opinion as they help to mitigate such a loss.

Tank:
While many people are concerned about the ridiculous tanks that will be fielded by these guys, I'd just like to challenge everyone to sit still in their next 7/10 - 9/10. Don't move, just tank. You don't even have to shoot anything. Speed/sig tanking may not be the primary form of tanking on battleships by a huge margin, but I assure you it has a Significant impact.

Stationary:
I don't really have the space to address this in this post, as this is a huge and fantastic change. I will suffice to say that this will have a huge impact on pve/pvp doctrines and will reshape the current way of thinking. I think this is one of the most fantastic changes to happen since I've been playing. I completely support these awesome ships and think they will be a great addition. Please feel free to challenge anything I'm proposing, as I definitely feel strongly about these ships and would like to be involved in the community that may ultimately shape them.

What suggested changes did you use exactly?

Are we supposed to use this same setup or a similar one every time we fly a Kronos?

Let's not try to be funny...

No need for a class on how you/ccp would like Marauders to be piloted. If i have to keep using a MWD along with the MJD I am going to need one more mid slot. I think if most had to choose they would take MWD over MJD. However if i could right-click on the MJD and type in a distance like warp to, orbit or keep at that is between 0 and 100km the mod would be great.

Thank you for giving us info on what we already expected. New Marauders/w Bastion or Pirate Faction BS. What would you rather fly for PVE/PVP after your excitement over this Bastion mod wears off. Also when making threads in 'Features & Ideas' about this type of thing why no just lock it afterword so no one can post? CCP very rarely implements things the community suggests...

Exactly the same thing I'm seeing. He's ignoring all the feedback telling him "No, bad dev... go back in your cage." and still trudging along and patting himself on the back as if it's a good idea.

He seems to be one of those people (better?) who does what he wants no matter how much he screws over someone else and in my opinion is just flat out immaturity.

He didn't exactly put it very tactfully but so far it seems Ytterbium is hell bent on making a ship thats specialised in running blockade and worlds collide extremely quickly and of little use for anything else (other than some niche roles) ignoring any feedback that isn't agreeing with that goal.

and anything not firing defender missiles is taking 1k dps from the golem, unlike the kronos' limp wristed damage due to not being in optimal range.

drones: resupply of drones is irritating but yeah not really detrimental
damage: higher 'paper' dps means the higher dps you CAN apply if conditions are right. You may be able to apply more damage with better application via projection, tracking, but in best case scenarios you will do less dps. And i believe that opt+ 1/2 falloff is more like 85% than 75%

now for stationary... here you have 2 options:
1 - MOVE but have less projection - through moving you can get into the range where you can project and do more dps - even more dps

1- stay still.... but project further. It might be easier to apply damage this way, but your damage cap is lower. And as soon as you move you are either going to be slow, or you are going to MJD out of your effective range, OR you could move quickly with mwd, but then you are dualproping and gimping tracking/opt/tank, or why not just use a ship with just an mwd, and move into range where you have higher possible dps?

Both are.... viable. But many prefer the ability to output more dps

I'm just going to post a copy of the table here, because obviously people arn't looking at it...

Percent of
Tracking or Falloff | Hit chance | DPS reduction
0% 100% 0.0%
25% 95.8% −6.1%
33.3% 92.6% −10.6%
50% 84.1% −22.1%
84.8% 60.8% −50.0%
100% 50.0% −61.1%
150% 21.0% −85.2%
200% 6.25% −94.3%
300% 0.20% −99.4%

Projection is better than raw deeps. factor in hit chance with dps drop....

Do you ever think about what you're doing? Thanks for describing how literally any battleship that can warp in at and/or maintain range can kill frigates if it wants to. Your approach here works irrespective of whether a ship has a gimmick siege module or not-- I used to do it with a Machariel all the time by simply warping to anomalies at range. If I'd wanted to, I could have fit a MJD to do the same thing.

Regardless, I'm glad the testing methodology for a ship "re-designed to be more useful for PvP" consists mainly of listening to people's feedback regarding how well the ship will perform in PvE and running missions in highsec to see if they're right. That is, you know, when you're not trying to tank incursion sites with them just for jollies.

I'm also confused as to why this concept of an overpowered PvE battleship is getting any traction at CCP in the first place, since you guys seemed dead-set on rendering all low clear time ratting setups non-viable (see addition of frigates to anoms to make Talos' not work, hell-nerfing of capital guns and removal of sentries from supercarriers to make supercaps useless for PvE, etc). You guys kept saying that these things had to go because, "people were making way too much money." Now you come back and design ******-proof ratting battleships that will make tanking beyond easy to, "lower clear times by improving damage projection and time spent shooting." Am I the only one who finds this strange? Titan ratting had to be nerfed because they did too much DPS, didn't have to worry about tanking, and were e-war immune, but a battleship that accomplishes essentially the same goals is a design priority at CCP?

I don't even get how it's possible for the game design team not to see how terrible this whole idea is: it doesn't significantly change people's ability to PvE in battleship hulls; even if it did improve it it, doing so would be at odds with your supposed game design philosophy; the ships will be beyond useless for PvP despite your claims that a main goal of the revamp was to add PvP functionality; and you continually ignore all critical feedback that's not related to "how will these change affect my mission clear-times?"

Honestly I'm done posting in these pointless dev threads. These dumb ships are going to be rammed through regardless of how many valid criticisms are presented to you, because you've already gone and spent the man hours on art assets before even floating the idea to the players. Next thing we know, these ships will be on SiSi-- mostly unchanged-- so that you guys can ignore another round of feedback and then push them out the door a few weeks later. By the time these bad concepts come up for community review, all that's left is a raging debate over minor differences in final stats rather than the conceptual vetoes that could keep you guys from wasting entire development cycles on stupid gimmicks.