Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is brewing for a while now and while this may not be ready for deployment yet, I want your thoughts about this and I promise, it will cause a lot of tears and drama.

Just a heads up, I don't know all the subsystem names by heart, so I refer to them as "Recon", "Hac", "Command Ship" and so on subsystems.
And to make this very clear, I lived in wormholes before and I know the most of my proposals will hurt your feelings but will be very good for the game, promise.

Now this for all tech 3 cruisers, in case you want to fly a HAC, fly a hac!

If you want to fly a Recon, fly a Recon!

If you want to fly a Command Ship, fly a Command Ship!

If you want logi, fly a logi!

If you want a swiss army knife, I suggest you get tissues now.


The Proteus:
HAC:
- the HAC subsystem gives you 5 turrets and a +5% medium hybrid damage per level bonus or
- 10% drone damage and hitpoints per level and 125m³ bandwidth
- the Recon subsystem cannot be fit with the HAC subsystem
- gives 6 lows, not matter what other subsystem you fit
- gives 4 med slots and full t2 resist
- the plate subsystem goes out the window
- the nullifier sub cannot be fit in HAC config
- Deimos armor and hull hp

Recon
- get 4 highslot
- can fit nullifier
- gives 5 med slots
- gives 5 low slots and Recon resist and armor/hull hp
- can fit covert ops cloak, cloak reactivation time 5 seconds, regular sensor reactivation time
- 7.5% point and scram range per level
- 5% dampener effectiveness per level
- 100m³ dronebay and 50mbit
- can fit nullifier and cynos

Logistic
- gives 4 high slots
- cannot fit nullifier
- cannot fit Recon subsystem
- 50m³ dronebay 50mbit +10 logi drone effectiveness per level
- Oneiros armor and hull hp, logi resistance


loki:
HAC:
- the HAC subsystem gives you 5 turrets and a +5% medium projective damage per level bonus or
- 10% missiles speed per level
- the Recon subsystem cannot be fit with the HAC subsystem
- gives 5 lows, not matter what other subsystem you fit
- gives 5 med slots and full t2 resist
- the plate / shield hp subsystem goes out the window
- the nullifier sub cannot be fit in HAC config
- munin shield, armor and hull hp and resistance

Recon
- get 6 highslot
- can fit nullifier
- gives 4 med slots
- gives 4 low slots and Recon resist and armor/hull hp
- can fit covert ops cloak, cloak reactivation time 5 seconds, regular sensor reactivation time
- 7.5% webifier range per level
- 10% target painter optimal range per level
- 60m³ dronebay and 40mbit
- can fit nullifier and cynos

Logistic
- gives 4 high slots with scimitar fitting
- cannot fit nullifier
- cannot fit Recon subsystem
- 50m³ dronebay 50mbit +10 logi drone effectiveness per level
- scimitar shield, armor and hull hp, scimitar resistance


Tengu:
HAC:
- the HAC subsystem gives you 5 turrets or launchers and +5% medium hybrid damage per level bonus or
- 10% missiles speed per level and +5% explosion radius for hams and heavy missiles
- the Recon subsystem cannot be fit with the HAC subsystem
- gives 3 lows, not matter what other subsystem you fit
- gives 7 med slots and full t2 resist
- the plate / shield hp subsystem goes out the window
- the nullifier sub cannot be fit in HAC config
- Eagle shield, armor and hull hp and resistance

Recon
- get 4 highslot
- can fit nullifier
- gives 6 med slots
- gives 4 low slots and Recon resist and armor/hull hp
- can fit covert ops cloak, cloak reactivation time 5 seconds, regular sensor reactivation time
- 10% ecm strength and range per level
- 25m³ dronebay and 25mbit
- can fit nullifier and cynos

Logistic
- gives 6 high slots with Basilisk fitting
- cannot fit nullifier
- cannot fit Recon subsystem
- 50m³ dronebay 50mbit +10 logi drone effectiveness per level
- Basilisk shield, armor and hull hp, scimitar resistance

By now you should have an idea where I am going with this and make the Command Ship equal for all four of them:

- gives 6 high, no turret, no launcher
- gives 5 med
- gives 4 lows
- can fit 3 warfare links
- command processor 50% cpu use reduction, limits to 3 command processors
- 250m signature radius
- cannot fit nullifier
- cannot fit Recon subsystem
- can fit medium mjd
- no dronebay
- Recon racial shield, armor, hull hp and resistance

the hacking config:
- gives 4 med
- gives 4 high
- gives 4 low
- Recon resistance
- 5% salvager duration and difficulty bonus
- the relic and data modules bonuses from the covet ops
- can fit covert ops
- cloak reactivation time 5 seconds
- can fit nullifier
- cannot fit Recon, Hac, Logi or whatever else you can think of subsystem
- +1 warp strength bonus

And the heat bonus of course.

I agree.

As much as I agree with that philosophically, why would I want to fly a jack of all trades, master of none? If they are somewhere between T1 and T2 in power, why would I fly it?

The versatility thing is vastly over rated - and frankly pointless. If the ship does not have the ability to carry the full range of modules and subsystems to refit, then I am better off just using multiple, specialized T2 Cruisers/Battlecruisers and reshipping.

The cure for T3's is to remove their rig slots. Plain and simple. Then adjust the subsystem sizes and bonuses accordingly. Take off the rigs from a current Tengu, Loki, or Legion, Proteus, then compare it to the T2 counterpart. For example, an old fleet Proteus fit I had laying around:

1256 m/s, 481 DPS (18+23), 162.5k EHP, 176m sig (MWD off)

Just dropping the three Trimark II's takes it down to 99.4k EHP. The speed goes up to 1423 m/s.

It is still better than a Zealot in terms of EHP (similarly fit Zealot gets 79k EHP), but not more than 2x better. Now you have a small margin better, but still balanced by SP loss and not insanely better. And it is not as good as a fleet-fit Sleipnir or other Command Ship, so I still have a better T2 Battlecruiser option(s).

I can see the virtue in being able to fly a ship that can be quickly reconfigured to be roughly equivalent to an Ishtar, or a Deimos, or an Arazu, but which does not have rig slots - so it can actually be configured to fill multiple roles.

Dear god, I'm defending Baltec.
Literacy, that thing you don't have today.
He specifically said T3 should be Better, just not so much better than a skilled pilot in a T1 can't even have a chance against a T3.

& to answer FT.
You would fly it because it could do the roles of 2 T1 cruisers at once. So yes, it can be worse than a T2 ship at it's speciality while still worth flying.

What two roles can these two ships do better at the same time?

The T3 Cruisers are not currently overpowered because they are versatile, they are overpowered because when you specialize them for a role they are better than the T2 counterpart.

A properly fit Tengu is a better "fleet ship of the line" than any other Caldari ship. It is a better Guristas 10/10 runner than any other ship. Arguably, the Falcon is better at its role than than the ECM Tengu, but that is also debatable.

A Loki is a better "armor fleet web support ship" than any other ship.

A Legion is a better Zealot than the Zealot.

And so on and so forth.

Balancing T3 Cruisers so that a Legion can be a Curse and a Zealot at the same time - without refitting - is stupid and overpowered.

Balancing T3 Cruisers so that a Legion can be an Arbitrator and Omen at the same time - without refitting - is stupid and useless.

Balancing T3 Cruisers so that a Legion can be a Curse or a Zealot with just swapping subsystems and modules is fine - if the subsystems are small enough that the Legion can carry both and the modules required to swap. Then you have a versatile ship, worth a slight premium on the hull, and worth the potential for SP loss. This is best accomplished by removing rigs from T3 Cruisers.

I hate T3 and i say YES to every nerf. Nerf and get rid of skillloss.

And then disallow unplugging implants in space, but thats a different case ^^

Where did I say worse than T1?

Lets take for example the T1 destroyers vs the Svipul. Right now they stand zero chance of ever beating the Svipul which is very poor game balance.

I think it would be simple if we reclassify T3C to BC level instead Cruiser, then nerf their mobility to BC.

Poor wording on my side, my bad. Yet, I do not see why a T1 destroyer should have a chance against a properly fitted and piloted T3D, even if the T1 destroyer is piloted very well. If a Thrasher can win against a properly flown Svipul, what is the point of a Svipul? (Not that I agree that the T3D should be in the game in the first place, but that's a different discussion.)


Very well. I do not really agree with them, but rather with the propositions of either turning them into battlecruiser class ships and/or removing the rig slots. Their DPS is not that much better than the HACs', only their tank is.

Other than that, I also wholeheartedly agree with Vic Jefferson. In one of my previous alliances, we discussed the merits of using Recons over T3s (Lachs instead of Prots, Hugs instead Lokis mostly) due to cost, but they are simply to flimsy and the No 1 primary target in any fleet that we would encounter so that repping them would be impossible due to alpha or too much sustained DPS. Of course, more destroyed ships are great, but if they cannot even remotely fulfill their role in a fleet, there is little point in using them.

Agreed with baltec ... Mostly,
i think the level of tank they can achieve is fine

but

i dont think they compramise nearly as much as they should to do so.
It rightly should gimp the rest of the fit.
I dont mind bs levels of ehp but doing so and having the same level of dps and still being mobile with whatever application mods you want is a bit much.

You want to tank jesuschrist himself? Fine but thats prettymuch all you can do.