With the latest Road to Fanfest pt2 blog that went out today, we announced some tweaks to the Proteus. We’re trying out separate discussion topics for various announced changes to make it easier for our teams to find topical feedback, so this thread is for this particular balance change.
The Proteus has been under-performing compared to its other T3C brethren. In particular, it suffers largely from very tight fitting stats as well as well as slow speed, as it’s often trying to fly around with heavy armor plates. These changes should help to give it a little boost and hopefully bring it up to a similar level as the other ships in its class.
Changes
Hybrid Encoding Platform Subsystem: 430 PG from 330 PG
Augmented Plating Subsystem: 25% reduction in Armor Plate Mass Penalty
New Additions based on feedback:
Drone Synthesis Projector Subsystem CPU 60 from 40
Drone Synthesis Projector Subsystem Bandwidth to 125 from 100
Drone Synthesis Dronebay Capacity to 300 from 250
Take a look at your Proteus fits and use this thread to let us know your thoughts on the changes! As always, we’ll keep an eye on how this develops in the meta and adjust as required.
Would be nice to have drone platform improved too.
Suggested change: Gallente Offensive Systems bonuses (per skill level):
No change
Role Bonus:
+125 mbit drone bandwidth, +300m3 drone bay (from +100 and +250)
+240 PG, +40 CPU (from +130, +40)
+7 high slots, +5 turret slots (from +6, +5)
Justification:
Gallente are known for drones and it feels strange that ishtar can field 5 heavies while proteus can’t.
Powergrid is to give ability to put better plating and to accommodate additional utility high
Additional utility high to improve setup with either long range sentry attacks using drone augmenter, or with short range setup neutralizer
Drone platform is useful but very rarely, this will give some additional interesting options for those that want to use it
EDIT1: Testing it in PyFa shows that it needs more PG…
The Proteus also needs more CPU, that is something that makes fitting it really hard, especially with the drone subsystem. It would also be great if the drone subsystem allowed the proteus to field 5 heavy drones.
I have some ideas for the other T3C too:
Tengu: Remove the kinetic lock and make the damage bonus apply to all damage types, just like the Jackdaw.
Loki: Change the missile subsystem bonus as follows: From the current 10% rof bonus make it 10% damage and 5% rof, so it would keep the same dps, but ends up eating less ammo.
What about removing that weird drone penalty on the interdiction nullification modules?
This penalty feels purposeless and only hits drone-capable nullified ships, which is mainly the Proteus and in lesser forms the other T3Cs and that single light drone on the Helios.
The proteus needs more speed, yes, but IMHO this proposed change misses the mark and fails to really understand the core part of the issue.
Let’s look at an unfit T3C (prop mod bonus prop sub, buffer defense sub, primary weapon office sub, and racial EW core) from each race from the perspective of an all V skilled char:
Loki: 289 m/s speed || 5.23 s align || 170 sig
Proteus: 225 m/s speed || 6.97 s align || 200 sig
Tengu: 212 m/s speed || 7.01 s align || 190 sig
Legion: 231 m/s speed || 7.06 s align || 180 sig
When we look at the general racial rules of thumb:
Amarr and Caldari are slower and tankier, Minmatar and Galente ships are faster and more agile
Why is the proteus the second slowest ship, with the largest signature, and align times on par with the Amarr and Caldari ships while the overall buffer that you could put on it notably lower?
The proposed change at best partially addresses to the core issue, and only for non-cloaky buffer builds that try for maximum armor HP.
The proteus still fails hard at agile, kitey builds such as what would be more thematically relevant – or anywhere near comparable to the Loki as it really ought to be for those type of fits.
For the PG change – I recommend also giving some PG love to the support processor – the PG challenges should be assigned to the drone boat version for balance reasons, not to everything. I am glad to see some help in that area, and hopefully the Proteus will be a few steps closer to being actually balanced vice a gimp paying for the sins of the past.
you’re mistaken ; caldari - agility , minmatar - speed , amarr - tank (armor resists/buffer , gallente - tank (rep bonus/hull buffer) .
you’re choice of subsystems is typical of people using sub-optimal or unbalanced fits to try and prove a point …
gallente lore : speed and agility ? lol
So, apparently you missed the dev blog about the interdictor changes… and didn’t see the bonuses given to Gallente Command Ships…
First, Ill concede the point that in terms of overall speed, Minmatar dominate and according to lore, they favor it. That’s fine.
But the Howling Interdictor update showed some evidence that Gallente is meant to be more maneuverable. The short of it is the empires are basically split with 2 shield and 2 armor factions (yes, I’m aware some Gallente can shield fit effectively and some Minmatar can armor fit effectively). And then each of those are split between maneuverability and ability to just slug it out.
Amarr is the slug it out armor faction, thus the Heretic being an armor brick; and the Calderi are the slug it out shield faction… again flycatcher is a shield brick.
The Sabre was in a good effective spot and left as is. It did its job well and didn’t need adjustments. The Gallente ship (Eris) got a major adjustment in that it can fit armor plates with no penalty caused by mass… this makes that ship a lot more agile than the armor brick Heretic.
Let’s move onto tanking hull bonuses. Amarr get passive resist and Gallente get armor rep bonuses. Before I continue I will concede that there are times to fit plates on Gallente ships and that armor resist bonuses do add to ehp/s. However, the ehp boost is far more effective on buffer tanking than active tanking; especially when you consider the armor rep bonus is better than the passive resist bonus for ehp/s. So, generally Amarr ships are more likely to fit plates which decrease their ability to maneuver compared to their Gallente counterparts.
Before we go to commamd bursts, let’s talk about plates… specifically faction plates. Imperial Navy (Amarr) plates have a higher increase in hit points, but also more mass. Federation Navy plates give more hit points, but have less mass than their T2 counterparts. Again, the stats of the faction plates show that Gallente are supposed to be the ‘agile’ armor empire.
And finally, let’s look at command bursts. Minmatar being the shield speed faction get shield and skirmish links while the ‘slug it out’ Calderi have information links. And which armor empire has skirmish links? Well, that would be the Gallente.
So, yes… the Proteus should be far more maneuverable than it is. I believe with the recent buffs to the Enforcer, the Proteus is now the slowest cruiser in the game… and judging by the evidence I’ve shown, if CCP wants to keep with their theme for Gallente, it should be far more maneuverable… especiallly when compared to the Legion.
It showed some evidence that on that patch, the devs decided that some specific ships should be more maneuverable.
That’s it.
Also, the lore is not a reason to balance. The goal of balance is to make the four of them viable choices , with each one its subtleties that make it better than another in a case but worse in other circumstances.
Wow… my entire argument countered with one word. I guess you’re right. I mean… you didn’t provide any evidence, but I guess because you said “nope”, I’m wrong.
Or the alternative is I’m right because of the evidence I actually provided. I also have some other evidence to support my claim, but I see no reason to provide it in the face of this non-existent counter.
