Wormholes

*ahem*

By Ship Class and Sub system(s) that are problematic

Legion:

Assault Optimization & - needs larger RoF bonus for more damage if it will continue to lack the range necessary.
Wake Limiter - Needs bigger sig reduction or perhaps add in the old cap bonus for having an MWD fit
Drone Synthesis - As gallente suggestion (but leave at 200m3 drone bay). Subsystem should gran +1 more mid slot than current.

Tengu:

Rifling Launching Pattern - Needs explosion radius/velocity bonus for damage application at range
Gravitational Capacitor - higher base speed to make mwd tengu similarly desirable to 100mn (just over 2K)
Capacitor Recharge Matrix - too much grid when the power core multiplier (whose name would suggest) that it should have the most grid as a bonus. (stealth nerf to 100MN cap stable tengus).
Powercore Multiplier - Give it the grid attributes of the CRM and maybe a slight bonus to bulk capacitor.
Obfuscation Manifold - might need some adjusting from 12.5% optimal to 15% or adding a second bonus for capacitor efficiency or even *gasp* cycle rate of jammers (5%/level).

Proteus: generally could use a speed boost or agility boost

Gravitational Capacitor - *as tengu suggestions*
Drone Synthesis - Add bonus to drone mwd speed & larger drone bay (250m3)
Friction Extension - people love this sub so hard it is a problem - get rid of bonus to long point range, but make scram specific bonus and double current scram range on it. So a repurposing that also serves at least as a partial counter to every damned BS having an MJD and also the MJD deployable structure.

Loki: In general needs more cpu and capacitor needs to be examined in its active tank set up. In all reality the real problem is capacitor flux coils being a terrible module

Adaptive Augmenter - give the loki an agility/inertia bonus to help compensate for lack of buffer - turn into armor kite sub.
Hard Point Efficiency - change hardpoints from 3/3 to 5/5 as split systems are not efficient or at least 4/4 like the scythe fleet.
Chassis Optimization - should be 2k m/s before nanofibers
Immobility Drivers - *troll face* are pretty well fine since link nerf/ alternatively get half the strength bonus that serpentis webs get so stats would be 75% speed reduction. Of course range would have to get slightly more nerf'd to about 30K with links. but its just an idea.

As far as general tanks go - tech 3's are fine and easily broken if you can kill the support. A successful counter fleet often has a large amount of ECM, be it damps, jamms, TD's or painters. Overwhelming t3's and their support with ECM is the best counter in w-space.

my 2 cents


Edit: All Supplemental Coolant Injectors need an additional bonus to heat...such as a 50% bonus to overheat effects. Tah Dah!

Delete post

Never said the tank should be nerfed below a HAC, only stated the gap should be more narrow.
But one could also argue that the price has always been overly inflated due to its permanent FOTM status in Wspace?

Sure, but I also define "better" by its current relevance. Besides, its also easier to fit and easier to maintain cap-wise. So I would still at any point call it better as long as that persists.

Well from what CCP stated for the use of specialized ships, that they should out-preform allround ships, then ofc they should do more damage than T3s. The idea of Tech 3 MUST be superior than Tech 2 is silly. They created a modular ship that is suppose to be able to do everything, but why MUST it do everything better than anything else?

Granted that the only reason I think its even remotely acceptable that it does anything better than specialized ships, is because of the skill cost. Which I also stated that they should remove.

T3s don't do everything better than the T2 variants.
They just put that capability into a survivable hull with low mass.
I would gladly use ships like falcons if there was a chance that they survived jumping into a camped hole, or bring Neutgeddons/Scorpions if it wasn't for mass limits.
I fear that nerfing T3's too much could cause huge balancing issues in w-space, if their capability can't somehow be replaced by other ships.

I think a major problem here is how closely t3 performance and the economic value of WH space are tied together. To me it seems a bit silly that a t3 outperforms a HAC by such a large margin... But it is difficult to nerf the t3 without disrupting the economy.

I believe that this situation is unique, and well it is a problem.

This is taken directly from CCPs new ingame ISIS.

Heavy Assault Cruiser - Advanced cruiser specialized in combat, with improved damage and resilience.

EDIT: I hate you for getting me to actually find the precise defined role :)

If we are literally going into word cleaving, then neither does the Strategic Cruiser. "Versatile hulls that can be reconfigured for a variety of attack, combat, disruption or support roles" Actually that doesn't mention it must have the highest damage and the biggest tank either or any improvement in that matter.

However, I've never stated they should have less of a tank than a HAC, because I quite believe the opposite, though the gap should definitely be smaller. But yes, I do believe they should do less damage than HACs, even if only slightly.

I had hoped that battleships and hacs would have been tanker than they turned out. Given the state of those it does seem like t3s are out of line in terms of raw ehp. A redo of the those classes to tank them up would be preferable to dragging t3s down to me although I doubt that will happen.

As for changing the meta I think it is more a result of the environment than of the ship. If for example some wormholes spit ships out at 15 km the meta would likely be distinctly different. I am not advocating for that change, rather it is intended to be an illustration as to why things are as they are. I think it is much more about spawn mechanics after passing through the hole than the ship. If you gimp any particular heavy brawler you will just find that it is replaced by another that functions the same way; the replacement certainly won't be a nanoboat that starts deep within the land of scram/web. I suppose a Web immunity/resistance module might break that up but there in would be another can of worms. Simply changing t3s will not likely change the observed behavior.

I've learned that you can only throw uncertainty up to a degree. For that to work, Kynric, you need to establish clear mechanics for people to discover and use. In the case you propose I dont think is going to work with mass left. I think it would work better with the stages of the holes and the total mass of it. It shouldnt be the same a C5 to C5 than a C5 to C3, for example.

I personally think random/complicated mechanics like that would be bad game design... But here is an idea that would achieve the same goal while also making sense:

* The speed you enter the wormhole equals the speed you exit the wormhole. This way a nano (fast shield) could zip past a brawling fleet camping the wormhole. Obviously you couldn't have this and a de-cloak timer.