Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Okay, so without the resist subsystem, the moa is inarguably better at being tanky than the tengu in question. Links are a defensive subsystem.

ECM competes with the tank and prop, and the TCs and sebos needed to reach out and break people. so again, moa beats tengu in being a combat ship. Not a HAC, a t1 cruiser, beats the t3 at primary engagement fit thus, with the power of rigs.

So, now fragments drop more often, and more BPCs happen. Higher end WHs lose one of the few reliably good sources of solo income they have ever had in the form of the data and relic sites which are just barely solo-able. T3 prices drop somewhat. C5-6 WH players leave because they now have even fewer ways to make good isk without risking their caps, and no ability to solo anything profitable except gas. GG, you've killed C5s, and maybe C6s.

Not pessimistic, conservative. Small, iterative changes are the best way to create actual balance. Major changes, especially ones which require either removing assets (destroying all rigs on t3s if they were removed) or messy, unable to recreate legacy exceptions (no new rigged t3s, but current t3s keep their rigs) should be well thought out, carefully crafted and as close to error free as possible.

D3s are a new shiny toy, which is getting the wings pulled off, as most of the fittings which have dominated on these ships will no longer be possible, and a cost to build increase, at the same time. They also can't sustain the demand for the salvage without having become ubiquitous to the point of killing off any other frigate/destroyer meta. They just don't use enough of the salvage unless fielded in 5x+ the number T3Cs are.

As for the range bonus being OP, the eagle would like a word with you. It is frequently passed over, despite having the same or better bonus to hybrid range, depending on how it is calculated (assuming HAC 4+), the T2 resists you love to hate on with a resist bonus baked onto the hull to boot, and a similar slot layout to a railgu. Oh and the 50% reduction in signature bloom for MWDs that all HACs have now.

I agree with fixing the engineering systems far far more than removing rigs. Giving them generous, but class appropriate, fitting and going to 2 rigs, like on t2 ships, would be about the perfect balance point IMO, as they then have to either use the rigs for fitting (and thus tank) to keep the tank mods they use (and probably drop to meta or faction), sacrifice damage to use lows for fitting, or take the hit to number of buffer mods this would force on most of the brick fits, while leaving room for creative fitting and cruisers capable of running WH sites.

To get on my soapbox for a moment, here is where I would like to see them hit with the finished product:

Replace the armor buffer subsystems with more flavorful ones, which don't synergize obscenely with slave sets.
Drop to 2 rig slots, with the heat reduction engineering subsystem allowing one more to be attached to it, which is destroyed if the subsystem is removed.
Drop the base resists to the marauder/blops profiles.
Fix the crappy subsystems, like drone synthesis projector and hardpoint configuration, so they have unique and cool places.
Give a close look to a small range bonus to the resist subsytems for their reps, say 50-75% at lvl 5 (10-15%/lvl).

Hey, Soldarius - Stop being so reasonable.



:pve:

Bring your T3s for C4/5s and Marauders for C5/6 - What is the problem? Hold on...

oh and theres still 2 more D3's too come aswell..

I know of marauder fits which are usable in C5s, and when fully blinged (A type tank, 4-5 slots of it) are somewhat viable under boosts in C6. That said, forcing t3s out of WH content, which they were designed to run, and which was balanced (if not originally, in one or more of the balance passes since) around capitals and t3s, is not a good spot to aim for. Allowing them to keep enough mitigation that they are usable should be a consideration.

And I have it on medium good authority that the answer was a little bit of columns A and B, as well as accepting that a whole rack was tank, no ifs ands or buts.

Uhm, you can actually get a vargur or golem to beat 30k burst with such things and cold tank (but wowza, the cost of those), or set up a perma-rep and cap chain from the 4 utility highs on marauders to keep them up alive until the heavy reps from a carrier land and they can be pulled back to full tank.

C5 and C6 can be run with capital ships, I don't see what the problem is. If it's too difficult to run them with capital ships, perhaps the rats need larger sig radii and slower orbit speeds.

So, more powerful subsystems, with some level of rig equivalency baked into the subsystem, but an overall nerf to customizability and overall flexibility? hmmm. Sounds alot more like a t2 idea than a good one to push on t3s.

Problem with T3 they are not what ppl think they are, and i think never will be. Subsystems are too expensive to carry whole spectrum of them. Rigs are permanent, and even if they would be removable they are expensive too. So basically hulls is premade for the role, subsystems only change how good the role will be.
A fairy tale:
"once upon a time i had a wish to fly into lowsec with my tengu into expedition. So i builded covert, passive shield tank hull. Rigs was expensive then, i think i paid over 25 mil for one then. And thats why, my dear children, its the end of story of swiss army knife because medium defense field purger II is very bad rig set in everything but PvE. The end."

So remove the rigs completely? good bye passive tank tengu (for example),
Switch them to hull? How? More combination than between subsystems,
Removable rigs? Nobody will carry them anyway, too expensive.