Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

I think the point is that they wanted to nerf the effective tank of cloaky T3s (whether solo or grabbing tackle) and they know the rep bonus is the weakest benefit that they could give it. I don't really disagree with their decision to do so.

Edit: active rep bonus also sucks for fleet work; which I think works well with the covops cloak. Rep bonus is better on solo ships (although buffer is the norm on most tackle anyway; and I agree it'd be unused often). It's like the Brutix - you can buffer fit for a good effect but it's not going to end up with the prophecy's stats.

Personally I would love to see the drone bay as a fixed stat on the ships.
That being said, the Ishtar has 375, Stratios has 400, VNI has 200, current Proteus has 225, I think bumping it to 250 would be OK but I could also see dropping it down to 200.

Fozzie mentioned pretty early in the discussion (late may?) that the original spreadsheet some of the subsystems looked a little powerful and some lackluster. I'm sure they'll change; eustise, caprisunkraftfoods, exooki and others had pretty solid feedback.

I suggest reading the comments on the focus group; the spreadsheet was a first pass - and I think they're aware that there are some extremely strong and lackluster weapon systems:


Captured from the May 30th logs (conversation starts around 1500). The link is in the first post if you'd like to read.

ccp_fozzie @mawderator Legion drone/missile is probably the one that seems most likely to break things, but Proteus hybrid and Loki projectile also seem a bit dangerzone

ccp_fozzie One big one is that it's a form of cost that is unique and distinct from our other form of costs. Costs for ships can come in the form of minerals, moongoo, LP, ISK, special drops, and SP in the case of the T3Cs. In general we're looking to highlight and emphasize the differences between T3Cs and other ships rather than make them more similar.

ccp_fozzie well if you don't balance based on small subsections we'd only ever balance for highsec

ccp_fozzie what I had in mind in this version of the design would be that the cloak subsystem wouldn't have a raw HP penalty compared to at least the normal active rep one, but that the HP would be less concentrated into the main tank types


There's a lot of concern about niche play styles, creating differences between the t3cs and other ships, and making sure the weapon subs make sense.

Edit - I had to edit out the time stamps because the forum thought I was using html...

I am in no way suggesting that the Bandwidth should be a fixed part of the hull, if possible I would like to see it added or subtracted based on what subsystem you have on the hull.
Simply the drone storage section would be fixed.
Edit: also I think the drones need to be removed from the blaster sub of the proteus.

You do have to consider right now the Proteus gets a maximum of 100Mpbs and 225 m3 of drone bay, so in that respect there would be very little change, assuming it went down to 200 m3. in contrast the VNI gets 125Mbps and only 200 m3 of drone bay.

I would argue with this. A good example are the sleeper cache sites: if you screw up something you get a lot of dps on you.
If you tie the cloak and the probe+analyzers together, I see 2 potential results:
- with the exploration subsystem you have a fair chance to complete the site, but a little mistake will probably result in losing your ship
- with an actual tank based defense you have a good chance to survive when the site blows up, which will happen because your analyzers aren't as good as they should be

Separating the cloak from the rest means you can have a good tank and a good exploration equipment, so you only need to worry about other players.
If you are a hunter you have the same options: have a cloak to sneak up on people, or have a tank and better chance of winning, while you don't have to sacrifice your probing bonuses.

Although it is not a problem for my play style, I think that people do have legitimate concerns with regards to the cloak and scanning roles being linked.

Again, I would suggest that a new line of industrial/pve subsystems are added and that the exploration roles could be tied to this. This would mean keeping the 5 subsystem model.

I would expect it's because they are updating to the new figures.

When I first heard that there would be a shake-up of the Strategic Cruisers, with fewer subsystems, I actually hoped that they'd get the same mode-switching mechanic that the tactical destroyers do. As a twist for the cruisers, though, the bonuses for each mode would be determined by the subsystems fitted, with the Core subsystem being always active. It seemed like it might make this "do everything at once" problem a bit easier to balance out.

@ CCP Fozzie

I'm looking at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q0HSnCO8ZF5L_VdoIqPRBPqexbWAj2LPWJhhRh7BALk/edit

3 Midslots for proteus!?! This will completely kill it.

My Current Tackle Proteus Setup
HighSlots
-Covert Cyno
-Cyno
-Sisters Core Probe Launcher
-A-Type Small Nos
-Cover Ops Cloak

Midslots
-B-Type 50mn MWD
-True Sansha Warp Scrambler
-True Sansha Warp Scrambler
-Federation Navy Stasis Web
-Sensor Booster II

Lowslots
-Damage Control II
-Imperial Navy Enam
-Imperial Navy Enam
-Dark Blood Energized Explosive
-Federation Navy 1600
-Federation Navy 1600

Subsystems
-Graviational Capacitor
-Covert Reconfig
- Cap Regen Matrix
-Augmented Plating
-Friction Extension

Slot Layout
H5
M5
L6

I understand reducing the tank of the tackle proteus. But to cut it down to 3 midslots removes any effective role it could have as a tackler. I was ok with the original plan to go 7/4/6 layout (even though I didn't like it)

Also you are proposing a 9 Highslot layout with those subsystems in the link above. Did you realize this?