So, you can’t still remotely support a stationed marauder? like remote sensor boost, tracking link and such?
Do not go down this road, lest CCP ban ‘stream sniping’ like fortnight does in the name of ‘protecting’ content creators.
Two steps forward, one step back. Good work CCP.
That is a really good point, most deployable structures last for two days, not two hours.
Unless they are not actually AFK, or cheating with a macro.
Probably happy that one IP address isn’t hitting the load balancer with 200 connections.
Never going to happen as it would create tangible consequences, something CCP seems to bubble wrap these delinquents from.
Said it before, saying it again. Either all E-WAR modules should be impacted by #RAND or none of them.
Exactly right, the current test is too easily defeated by a macro, it would be better if the cloaked ship had to leave the system before it could cloak again.
If the bastion module gets this, so too should the siege and triage modules. Might as well remove the immobility effects as well so bastion is not completely crap.
LOL. Have you considered running for CSM?
Say that when you are ECM’d in a auto cannon vargur by a griffon 75 km away.
These ships are too expensive to be hit with this kind of nerf, not if people actually want to use them.
Have you considered making separate posts for separate unrelated responses?
I did, then CCP got this hard on for making everything slow mode by default, still, by the time you have replied to this post, nobody is going to read mine as its not the very top or bottom anymore.
This thread isn’t slow mode.
1 Like
This is too low. With this Marauders will become too easy to scan down in mission hubs, L5s and to a lesser extend 0.0 complexes.
Marauders need some form of protection against being combat probed down, what with being immobile ships with paper EHP.
And it really shouldn’t matter for jamming Marauders because even with 200% bonus they’ll be a pain to jam, with sensor strength in the 70s (my Paladin would sit at 75.3). Even a Widow, the subcap with the strongest jams in the game tops out a a maximum jam strength of 19.8.
19.8/75.3=0.263
Meaning even the strongest subcap jams in the game only have a about 1 in 4 chance to jam … nevermind that bringing the Widow against a Marauder is a bad idea. Frigate/Cruiser sized jam ships have an even lower chance to succesfully jam. So in the end it shouldn’t really matter if the Bastion has a 200% or 500% or 700% increase to sensor strength on the jamming side of things.
1 Like
Instead of 1 sensor booster with ECCM script you would now need 3 sensor boosters with ECCM script + implants to be nearly impossible to probe down while bastion is running.
I would say the 1000% sensor strength bonus made it way too easy. With 200% sensor strength bonus you can still do it but it will take effort. I agree with reducing the sensor strength bonus, but I think something between 250% - 400% would be a better spot for that bonus.
Preferably we don’t want ‘unprobable’ to be too easy with a single module, but neither do I think 3 modules + a high tier implant set should be required.
1 Like
Just as I injected a boatload of SP to sit in a Marauder, the nerf gets planned… I mean really… ??
Welcome to EVE. That is the norm now 
That might work for L5 Golems, but most highsec Marauders don’t really have the flex slots for Sensor Boosters. Especially the Paladin and Kronos. Which doesn’t bode well for people in Lanngisi, Apanake, Osmon and Umokka.
Likewise, a CovOps shouldn’t have an “I win” button.
Give enforcer the 7 hardpoints you advertised. 5 is super underwhelming for a ship that’s now more expensive than a t3c when you account for sp loss removal. I prefer the turret/launcher hardpoints than a damage buff because this makes one choose between having utility or maximized damage. Please don’t let it go as is, it’s just not very good.
1 Like
Considering a couple of test fits I’ve been playing with, they actually are surprisingly strong in a full damage configuration. I’m getting about 800dps off an Autocannon/HAM setup out to 22km, with rather impressive defensive webs+longpoint.
Ofc, the advantage requires some in-space terrain such as facwar plex deadspace to be really viable as you’re completely skimping cloak for combat capability, and people will dig out probes if they see you
800dps is small if you sacrifice cloak on a 500 mil hull with no health. You need to see the bigger picture. There’s nothing ‘surprising’ about only fitting dmg and getting some, but for real use fits they should be able to fit the cloak+6 otherwise they’re gonna rot like they have been. And if you’re giving up ALL your high slots I don’t see anything wrong with being able to fit seven launchers or guns.
Right now it’s a shittier more expensive Stratios.
Even dropping on launcher for a cloak still puts you at around 750 dps, so you still can punch quite hard. The rough bit really comes down to EHP. And keep in mind, I was talking about a specific set of test fits that eschew stealth in favor of manipulating your spacial area to your advantage(e.g. faction warfare complexes and gates, or even ESS gates where you’ll attract attention, but people can’t warp directly to a tackler or a combat probe scan)
There are things that can still do it better ofc, and for cheaper, I’m well aware. But its still interesting to me to push things outside their expected boundaries.
That’s the angle I’m approaching this from. How can this change add other niches to the hull, and less about direct lethality in all circumstances.
"Where’s the carrot ? they asked
"Why, it’s right here !" CCP replied
And, sorry to mention this (not really), but with only 4 mids, the paladin gets shanked. Again.
Sensor strength bonus only showing as 100% on SISI (04/07)
I use my Varg for PvE and the last change was certainly welcome. Target painting I can live with because your a big target going nowhere so being painted makes sense but remember a non moving target already benefits from tracking etc so maybe 50% could be pushed up a tiny bit.
Reducing the sensor strength makes sense as 1000% was admitidly a little generous. Dropping the sensor strength could be “balanced” with a little boost to scan res… (pretty please)
I would certainly agree with others in that this is a mod that glues your ship in position and that is a huge penalty. The 30sec timeout was a godsend and allowed a little more flexibility with PvE but dropping the bonuses these ships get is just a kick in the teeth. Chuck me a little scan res and a tracking bonus and I think Id be happier with these changes.
1 Like
We love the idea of skill loss as an ultimate penalty in the game but don’t think this isolated one-off implementation on this single ship is the right place. It has been a long discussed topic in the community, and we’ve decided to finally remove the skill loss from T3 cruisers.
No. You stop that right now. Skill loss is a ridiculous mechanic that you never should have had in the first place. Removing clone grades was the best change you ever made to the game. Removing progress from a player is awful game design.
Skill training is painful and slow enough without people having to worry about getting their progress reverted, and future mechanics revolving around skillpoint loss will absolutely kill content. Go grab an extractor, pull anything to do with “loving the idea of skill loss” out of your head, and burn it.
2 Likes
Mobile covert cyno beacons - if it’s more expensive than standard mobile cyno, it will approach a cov ops ship price… at this point why not just use the cov ops ship (instant cyno, has tackle, need a ship to deploy the cyno/ beacon anyway, maybe won-t be 1-use…)
Buffs to the Pacifier and Enforcer - Pacifier really needs another high slot… or bigger dmg multiplier and -1 gun slot. Otherwise you have to constantly swap between probe launcher/ cloak. Enforcer is SUPER slow and unlike the Marshall doesn’t deliver 1500 dps and is not a blops…
Bonuses to reduce nullifier penalties for Interceptors - what about targeting range, CPU requirements and nullifier reactivation (too slow imo).
Hardened cloak booster extension - idk about this one. good?
Tech 3 cruiser skill loss removal - after xx rounds of nerfs to t3c’s themselves and resist mods (even the nullification mod isn’t unique/ good anymore) the SP loss really isn’t justified. It was when those ships were unique and overpowered (when blingy/ with links), now they are same or worse than faction/ t2 ships (especially HAC’s).
Overall a good change, but feels like a small plaster applied next to a gushing artery wound. Doesn’t fix the worst that happened to the game past year, doesn’t touch mining/ industry/ pve etc.
Waiting for more. Fix the game please XD
That CovOps would need more than 3 modules + high tier implant set to probe down an ‘unprobable’ marauder though.
1 Like
Back when T3Cs were ‘jack of all trades’ and also ‘master at them too’, SP loss made sense. They’ve been justifiably nerfed, though I believe they used the nerf sledgehammer as is typical. They have yet to find the other tools in the toolbox after all these years.
T2Cs are specialized ships that do one thing really well. T3Cs Are supposed to be jack of all trades, but master of none. And they’re to refit in the field – this means that you can save mass on the wormholes and bring more ships to a fight.
Basically, T3Cs are wormhole ships that nerds in k-space figured out were broken for the n+1 playstyle, and now you can’t even have a laser Legion that can tackle and hold anything. Mass-for-mass, T3Cs are now generally relegated to a few cookie cutter builds, or as Virtue pod-savers.
So yeah, removing the SP loss from T3Cs makes sense. Has for a long as hell time now.
2 Likes