These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2011-08-09 00:48
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-13 14:21
  • Number of Posts: 966
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 0

Noxisia Arkana

Security Status 3.5
  • Deadspace Knights Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rek Seven wrote:
    @Focus group, am I reading right that Fozzie has moved the warp speed bonus to the nullification subsystem?

    Why was it removed from the non-nullified sub? This removes the ability for a T3 to travel fast.



    The logs linked in the first page show the reasoning. But there's a lot of discussion still around this. Essentially it's a tip to the nullified subs agility sucking.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    BESTER bm wrote:
    Dior Ambraelle wrote:
    Does it really matter if you are a solo or group player, PVE or PVP, as long as you play

    It should not, but recent developments would indicate that CCP does at least try to promote a specific style of play over others and is modeling and 'balancing' ships to accomodate this.



    I don't think that's entirely fair. There are play styles that get wrecked with updated (for instance, the warp speed changes killed my love of battleships). However, in the focus group CCP is trying to accommodate a lot of play styles. I think it's inevitable that someone's going to get boned but they're trying to minimize it.

    I watched Chance's video - I'm putting together fits now. I 1k dps /1.5-18k tank cloaky tengu seems poweful (although obv not in groups).


    FYI, I've been on vacation a week. I'm still reading through (and sometimes skipping) a lot of text.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    @Omnathious Deninard: ah the bay, I thought you were thinking both. Right now the blaster prot gets +25 mb and the drone gets +100. Seems okay. I think having the bay on the hull might be weird because you could end up with 25 mb and have a 200 m3 bay or 100 mb with 200m3; which would make the drone sub kind of crappy (less flights). The m3 is hypothetical, not based on any real numbers but illustrative.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    @Omnathious Deninard: I'm going to quote fozzie here and say that I think the point is to make the ships unique from other ships not more similar. But I get what you're going for. As someone that lived out of a domi for way too long in my early eve career I have a deep love for drones and like extra bay space for when they get shot at... but I'm not sure that the t3c's should get that same luxury.

    I'd also enjoy the bay as part of the base ship, but a blaster proteus with 100 mb of drone width seems kind of broken.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    JC Mieyli wrote:
    im gonna iterate my 3 major complaints with the proposed offensive systems

    legion laser sub is a waste of time
    legion missile sub is a waste of time
    tengu rail sub is a waste of time



    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...

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Rek Seven wrote:
    Ah ok. Personally i have no problem with the cloak, probe and exploration bonuses being on the same sub systems, it actually makes scene! My problem is the new cloak defensive subsystem is linked to a local repair bonus, which will be useless in 90% of the situations cloaked ships are currently used for. There are so many sacrifices you have to make to fit a viable local reps tank that is is often better to use a passive, thus making the bonus unused.


    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.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Yeah, we were told that changes to the recon ships were out of scope - but I think that'd be a nifty bonus; although the amount of info on dscan in a busy system could be a little overwhelming.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Dior Ambraelle wrote:
    @ Noxisia Arkana
    I'm just curious: did you see here any ideas that you personally like and/or agree with lately?

    Also, @ CCP Fozzie
    I know you have a lot of work to do, but could you also communicate toward us, sometimes please? As I was reading this thread, I saw multiple people (including me) having concerns about the exploration kit is tied to the cloak-based defense. Could you please explain why exactly do you think this is good/necessary?



    There's a couple of good ideas - remember the focus group chat logs are public and linked in the first post by CCP Fozzie.

    My favorite (personally) thus far is giving the t3s base stats and having the subsystems alter them by a fixed amount or percentage. It sounded like the devs were open to that idea as well. Not that it was my suggestion but I supported it for a couple of reasons:
    1. It'll make it easier to do math when we get some numbers on what the nerfs will do to these ships.
    2. It makes it much easier for a new player to look at the ship and evaluate it's worth somewhat without playing with 100 subsystem combinations.
    3. It just makes sense.

    There's been push back on having the probe tied to the cloak subsystem as well and we asked for it to be a ship bonus (Null FCs, lowsec, ded hunters, and others would benefit from that).

    I personally think the group is very focused on trying to make sure that T3s aren't going to obsolete whole ship classes; I personally struggle with how can you make recons and HACs relevant outside of cost (or recons better range on ewar). If anyone has ideas there I'm happy to hear them.

    There's some good industrial advice (and exploration) being given to ccp as well (such as wh data/relic sites aren't worth anything because of demand for those materials related to t3c production).

    We have similar concerns that I've seen voiced in the forum - certain slot layouts (8 mids, lows, or highs on some of the sub combos) seem like they could be a problem but until we know the cpu/pg and base stats of the ships I'm not going to say that they aren't workable.

    Me personally, I've suggested/agreed that the RR sub can still fit weapons (since dual boxing or running c4s with a small group of RR tengus is something I've enjoyed in the past and doesn't seem broken). I also expressed concern over the logi sub's initial range with large shield reps and they may end up only getting a fitting reduction (again nothing final) for mediums.

    There's a ton of speculation and my personal opinion after bearing/hunting in wormhole space for about 4ish years. There's a pretty varied group but I doubt we'll get it all right - so I encourage you to read what you can handle of our logs and make suggestions (you could just CTRL+F for fozzie to get a quicker view on what the devs are coming back with for discussion).

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Dior Ambraelle wrote:
    The last one is actually a good point, T3Cs should be able to refit themselves for a completely different role. Not including the option where you have a DST following you with everything you may need, you should have a larger than average cargo hold to have a mobile depot, the replacement subsystems (probably no more than 2) and the replacement modules. If you use missiles, your cargo hold is probably half filled with them, the same goes for drones, a replacement a defensive subsystem and it's modules also need a lot of space, if you would need to change the weapon type (turrets-missiles/drones) you're basically doomed.
    T3Cs shouldn't have a cargo subsystem, but a "decent" cargo space that suits their role.
    Or maybe a dedicated cargo space where only subsystems can be placed. That also would help a lot.


    In the focus group we've mentioned that the cargohold for exploration is fairly lackluster; but as you said earlier I don't think we want to infringe on the T2 transports niche. Nothing worse than a cloaky / nullified transport ship...

    Still reading comments in here, but there isn't enough info on new stats to really let us theory craft. I think a lot will depend on resist profiles, powergrid, and cpu. There are some potentially worrying ewar and tank slot combo's with the revisions. Again, I would say that until you can put some numbers behind them using the 'old' t3c stats isn't going to give you a good idea of their power.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    My hope would be that nullified t3s aren't impossible to catch as they are now; align times / sig radius increases - these will affect how these ships work. But they can still be effective in grabbing tackle through a bubble in null or doing exploration.

  • Strategic Cruiser Focus Group Working Thread in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Just wanted to mention that I'm reading over the thread as well as being a member of the focus group. I wanted to echo Chance Ravine's comment - there should be a reason to use a cloaky t3 over a stratios when the re-balance is complete.

    And while I personally didn't enjoy the nullification, after reading more of the exploration and HK justifications I agree with keeping it. Not that I get the final say, but what I'd be voicing.

  • Dev blog: Strategic Cruisers and You in EVE Information Center

    Thanks for including me, I'll try to bring valuable advice and work with a couple group's I know to get some opinions. I'll even pull out the ol' graphing calculator if needed.

    Edit: Not that I don't already have my own opinions - but I'm not going to be closed minded about this.

  • Forming the Strategic Cruiser Focus Group in EVE Technology and Research Center

    I'm interested in being part of this discussion. I fly T3s primarily in solo / small gang wormhole fights. And fight against the same. I'm a non-certified EFT warrior, and enjoy long walks on the beach.

    That being said, I'd love to help shape t3s and give feedback via experience and my mediocre math skills.

    Best regards.

  • WormBoard (a new wh kills comparison site.. in EVE Gameplay Center

    Neato. It does make it harder to stay off the map... and the avg # / kill is a pretty handy one glance stat.

  • Dev blog: The future of probe and directional scanning UI in EVE Information Center

    Tip - if you turn UI Interaction off in advanced audio it disables the submarine ping (along with all other click/button effects).

    Also, seems like the solar system map is bugged? The map button on the probe launcher on one account and not on the other. Relogging seems to help.

    But still, please change the dscan to be at the top. The bottom buttons get pushed under other windows.

  • Dev blog: The future of probe and directional scanning UI in EVE Information Center

    Yo Homeslice, we need a way to turn off the d-scan sound effect. I hit dscan like 20 times a minute in wormhole space - I'm about to ******* lose my mind on this.

    Also, moving the d-scan angle/range to the bottom of the window was not a good idea... it makes it slightly more annoying to hunt targets using d-scan. Can we get the beta map button added back to the probe launcher?

  • [March] Mobile Warp Disruptor changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Good Change, I'm happy that decloak citadels / POSs in wormhole space will be generally boned by this.

  • Mining (ore) in wormholes in EVE Gameplay Center

    The above are pretty good answers. I'd say you don't have to scout holes if you roll them, but it sounds like people that are mining would rather watch a hole they know is open to one that may be open.

  • Null Anomalies vs WH - balance! in EVE Gameplay Center

    Jack Miton wrote:
    Why should ns pve have anything to do with wh pve?



    I agree that there needs to be a different metric. However, we also know that there are renters out there bubbling an entire region and ratting in relative safety (new bubble mechanics will help with this).

    However, I do think there needs to be something that draws people to wormhole space. Isk is a good motivator. I'd honestly prefer it not be industry that brings people in because PI/Reaction holes are pretty boring from an interaction standpoint. You can work to evict, but evicting someone from a wormhole is about the least fun you can have in eve.

  • Null Anomalies vs WH - balance! in EVE Gameplay Center

    'Self destructed BS & Capitals' - if you rage cage my POS I would rather self destruct than give you a bunch of shiny kill mails. If it's not a good fight why would people come out and fight?

    If you've got 5-6 characters evicting a group with 5-10 active members I can see them saying - hey, they don't' have a lot of people lets see if we can push them out. If you've got a corp where they can get 5-8 characters and one dude's triple boxing and you have a 20 man fleet pushing their **** in - I'd also say f you and self destruct.

    From personal experience, I've had a corp with 4-5 guys run from a 4-5 man eviction fleet. On the other hand, I've brought in an 7-8 man fleet (nothing fancy) and had the locals push us out with only 3-4 dudes (we had mostly bombers). The point is people are more likely to 'provide content' when you give them the opportunity to win (even if it's an illusion). I'm sick of this space bushido **** where w-space corps pretend that they aren't dropping every online member on a rattle running a c4 site.

    We're opportunistic parasites that enjoy the occasional goodfight and get our rocks off on the hunter/prey sneaky ****.

    I consider myself PVP oriented, but when there isn't a 'good fight' I don't feel obligated to provide content to people that are bored. Even when I have offered content (i.e. sitting a ship in space) corps that outnumber me don't want to fight off of a wormhole or a highsec. So the risk aversion runs both ways - only idiots constantly take fights they don't think they're going to win.

    If you made the isk/hr of c1/2/3 sites at or above L4 (blitzing) or incursions - you'd see an extreme influx of people. Honestly, there's no reason to set up in a low class wormhole unless you like looking for fights or are looking for a new challenge. Isk wise you can make more station trading, supplying mission hubs, blitzing l4 missions, running incursions, hell - even exploring through null in a 40 mil ship.

    Plus, if you bring in people that are only going to self destruct ships at a pos by increasing the amount of isk paid out by sites - you're at least cycling more targets into wormhole space; those guys are going to have to run sites to have shiny battleships and you can camp the **** out of them too.