These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Electronic Attack Ships

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#301 - 2013-10-08 16:07:36 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

I also don't think the tackling ranges are a problem. Killing support has gotten substantially easier over the last couple years and tackling has gotten harder as a result. I think having some support ships around that are difficult to fly well, have a different style than recons but provide some similar functions seems really positive for gangs of many sizes.


Eh. For some ships, perhaps. Try killing kiting tackle with a drone ship. My 2 DDA dragoon's warriors do 178 dps and go 7875m/s, but I wouldn't count on them to trouble anything but an untanked T1 attack frigate. It amuses me when people think unbonused warriors actually do anything.

Also, skirmish links haven't really gotten better, but they've gotten more prevalent, and they just throw everything off.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#302 - 2013-10-08 16:07:43 UTC
Quote:
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/65063/1/WarpSpeedAfter.jpg



And yea, some of the EAF's are bad at dealing with drones.. but most aren't really unless we are talking bonused lights here. Also controlling your drones tends to be hard when jammed/damped.

Ohh and then of course there is a ton of frigates, destroyers and cruisers that don't have aflight of lights.


What are you getting at with the image? It shows exactly what I said. AFs, bombers, and EAFs are 6.75/sec. Frigates are 6. Dessies are 5.25. T1 cruisers are 3.


Most combat cruisers have a flight of lights. Only a few, (mostly ones that already have no problems dealing with frigates for other reasons), lack it.

EAFs won't die instantly to a flight of drones but they certainly won't be tanking them for that long.. EAFs aren't fast, tanky, or damage-y enough to deal with them.
ArmyOfMe
African Atomic.
#303 - 2013-10-08 16:11:11 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
It seems to me like those of you that are most concerned are players who really dislike ewar as a system, and therefor dislike these ships. I'm not sure anything but keeping these nerfed into the ground is going to sound good to you, and I understand that as a player who struggled with ewar a lot.

I also don't think the tackling ranges are a problem. Killing support has gotten substantially easier over the last couple years and tackling has gotten harder as a result.

Do I hate ew? oh hell yes i do, but ive learned to live with it. Learning to live with loads more of it as a pirate on the other hand will be impossible..


And how in the world can you say tackling has become harder over the years? Are we even playing the same game? All you have done is make it harder and harder for big ships to roam solo or in small gangs in low sec. The Web nerf and the ******** boost to scrams made sure that nobody can fly a battleship solo in low sec ever again. And yet here you are claiming that tackling has become harder.

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#304 - 2013-10-08 16:12:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Viko VIkolander
CCP Rise wrote:

I also don't think the tackling ranges are a problem. Killing support has gotten substantially easier over the last couple years and tackling has gotten harder as a result. I think having some support ships around that are difficult to fly well, have a different style than recons but provide some similar functions seems really positive for gangs of many sizes.


This is absolutely right, and it is going to get worse with the introduction of Heavy RMLs which are anti-support/tackle on beast mode. I have the opposite worry as many in this thread, then--frig platforms are increasingly being pushed into isolated roles, such as frig v frig FW and RVB (and the latter is mainly for whoring on larger kills without taking an isk hit for many non-newbies). So, I'm worried the only time we will see EAFs are in limited FW engagements, and in cloaky dishonor "1v1s" (e.g. a step up from cloaky griffins). Make frig platforms harder to hit by larger, non-dedicated ships, and then we might see EAFs actually used.

Also, the poster above me, demoaning not being able to fly a battleship solo in low sec without counters...wut? I mean, if you are soloing in a BS in low sec and get caught by a solo frig that you can't hit or jam or kill with drones, you probably need to rethink some things...
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#305 - 2013-10-08 16:13:01 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:

EAFs won't die instantly to a flight of drones but they certainly won't be tanking them for that long.. EAFs aren't fast, tanky, or damage-y enough to deal with them.


Fortunately they can warp out and come back within about 10s.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#306 - 2013-10-08 16:18:21 UTC
My stance is definitely not "it's okay if this destroys the meta because we can change it after", it's that I don't think it will mess up the meta but if it did somehow I would be here to fix it.

I talked with Fozzie a bit and we may be up for making some small changes to some of the range bonuses and maybe to their mass to make them a bit easier to catch.

Still going to wait a little longer before committing to any changes.

ps - this is a great way to start a post "Dear ******* christ on a stick." =D

@ccp_rise
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#307 - 2013-10-08 16:18:40 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Kahega Amielden wrote:

EAFs won't die instantly to a flight of drones but they certainly won't be tanking them for that long.. EAFs aren't fast, tanky, or damage-y enough to deal with them.


Fortunately they can warp out and come back within about 10s.


Assuming a 1 AU warp, per the figures given in the graph, it will take ~4s to align, 14s to complete warp, 4s to align back, and another 14s to land back on grid...So, out of the fight for 36s assuming perfect piloting and zero time to lock up and reapply ewar.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#308 - 2013-10-08 16:22:14 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
It seems to me like those of you that are most concerned are players who really dislike ewar as a system, and therefor dislike these ships. I'm not sure anything but keeping these nerfed into the ground is going to sound good to you, and I understand that as a player who struggled with ewar a lot.

I don't feel convinced that they will be so good they will blot out the sun and no one will be able to have a fight, and I've said if that becomes a big issue we will make tweaks.

I also don't think the tackling ranges are a problem. Killing support has gotten substantially easier over the last couple years and tackling has gotten harder as a result. I think having some support ships around that are difficult to fly well, have a different style than recons but provide some similar functions seems really positive for gangs of many sizes.

One thing I can agree about is that it's important for them to be close enough to be countered and the extreme lock range might put that at risk. That said, their lock range is almost the same as the t1 disruption frigs which are faster and have smaller sig, and no one is saying t1 disruption frigs are impossible to deal with.

I'll make sure we talk about this internally some before they ship and if others feel concerned we can tune the ewar or lock ranges down a bit.


actually as far as i can tell there have been only a few posts with the i hate e-war so i want it nerfed to the ground... that sounds like a shrug off and a dismissal of our views like .. you hate ecm so you're opinion will be discounted ... a little disrespectful really..

personally i own a curse and rapier and have always wanted EAF's to be useful for a small gang great for young pilots to see if they like them before committing to the long stretch that recons are and a cheap counter to recons themselves mainly the quicker lock time kitsune vs falcon etc... but have always felt they lacked somewhat but not in the e-war department ... more the flying paper ship theme that limits inties and SB usefulness in high sec wars/ low sec roams.

Recons should have a range advantage over EAF's but even recons need range nerfs really 100km webs are too much and too easy too achieve .. 60km plus points.. its too hard for small mobile gangs to remain even vaguely mobile enough in a fight it just ends up in brawls or not getting fights in the first place.. its a shame after cruisers have been made useful to then bring these changes out just encourages more bc brawls or no fights at all.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#309 - 2013-10-08 16:26:36 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
My stance is definitely not "it's okay if this destroys the meta because we can change it after", it's that I don't think it will mess up the meta but if it did somehow I would be here to fix it.

I talked with Fozzie a bit and we may be up for making some small changes to some of the range bonuses and maybe to their mass to make them a bit easier to catch.

Still going to wait a little longer before committing to any changes.

ps - this is a great way to start a post "Dear ******* christ on a stick." =D


I get annoyed quickly when something threatens my terrible "elite frig-scrub pvp" <.<



And to whoever i was taking to about warp speed before

The warp speeds of EAF's in relation to other frigates is entirely irrelevant, the fact is that they will land on you faster than you can react to in most cases.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#310 - 2013-10-08 16:30:03 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
My stance is definitely not "it's okay if this destroys the meta because we can change it after", it's that I don't think it will mess up the meta but if it did somehow I would be here to fix it.

I talked with Fozzie a bit and we may be up for making some small changes to some of the range bonuses and maybe to their mass to make them a bit easier to catch.

Still going to wait a little longer before committing to any changes.

ps - this is a great way to start a post "Dear ******* christ on a stick." =D


If you can convince me that recons aren't totally broken, maybe I'll believe you that these proposed EAFs aren't totally broken as well.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#311 - 2013-10-08 16:35:27 UTC
Can you convince me that they are? The most popular Recon sees less airtime than a Stabber. I'm sure that won't sound sufficient but I'm not sure how it could be proven.

Quote:
that sounds like a shrug off and a dismissal of our views like
I feel like acknowledging this type of thing may not be smart but if it isn't obvious from my interaction here on the forums I can say it very straight forwardly - I would never intentionally dismiss the input of players, no matter how much I might disagree.

@ccp_rise
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#312 - 2013-10-08 16:37:38 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Can you convince me that they are? The most popular Recon sees less airtime than a Stabber. I'm sure that won't sound sufficient but I'm not sure how it could be proven.

Quote:
that sounds like a shrug off and a dismissal of our views like
I feel like acknowledging this type of thing may not be smart but if it isn't obvious from my interaction here on the forums I can say it very straight forwardly - I would never intentionally dismiss the input of players, no matter how much I might disagree.



Isn't that just because t3's do the same thing with commandship tanks?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#313 - 2013-10-08 16:48:12 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Can you convince me that they are? The most popular Recon sees less airtime than a Stabber. I'm sure that won't sound sufficient but I'm not sure how it could be proven.

Quote:
that sounds like a shrug off and a dismissal of our views like
I feel like acknowledging this type of thing may not be smart but if it isn't obvious from my interaction here on the forums I can say it very straight forwardly - I would never intentionally dismiss the input of players, no matter how much I might disagree.


im sure you don't do it intentionally you listen more than the rest of the devs do put together... but it still happens as evidenced by this thread and the overwhelming response of you have took the wrong approach even by people who use recons like myself who are even saying recons are OP and like the other post we are talking about the secondary e-war mainly ..

Please listen to us on this we want EAF to be more survivable than T1 e-war frigs but focused on the shorter secondary e-war which includes more survivability and some actual attack would be nice think mini recons in every sense of the word .. frigs shouldn't be range based they are meant to be short range...

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
ArmyOfMe
African Atomic.
#314 - 2013-10-08 16:49:05 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Can you convince me that they are? The most popular Recon sees less airtime than a Stabber. I'm sure that won't sound sufficient but I'm not sure how it could be proven.

1. Stabber has less skill reqs then a recon Blink
2. I think more ppl fly t3's with the ew subs these days.

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#315 - 2013-10-08 16:53:52 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Can you convince me that they are? The most popular Recon sees less airtime than a Stabber. I'm sure that won't sound sufficient but I'm not sure how it could be proven.



Covops cloaks, 58km disruptor range, 52km web range, bonused ecm?

I don't know where to start, can someone help me out.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#316 - 2013-10-08 17:05:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
CCP Rise wrote:
Can you convince me that they are? The most popular Recon sees less airtime than a Stabber. I'm sure that won't sound sufficient but I'm not sure how it could be proven.


I bet you pre-nerf titans also saw less airtime than pre-buff stabber. Its not a good comparison, and doesnt mean titans hitting cruisers wasnt overpowered.


Rise, I know you have done your share of small gang pvp. In how many situations is a recon that has just warped in or decloaked not called immediate primary? Do you think this is done because recons are more or less threatening than every other ship on the field?

The comms in a typical engagement will be like

"ok, raven is primary, put dps on raven, someone get me point"
"point raven"
"ok its going down, next primary will be that thorax burning in"
"rapier!"
"rapier primary all dps on rapier"

And the decision to disenage a small gang?

"Ok they have 2 falcons 2 scimis and a huginn, i think its time to leave"

not

"ok guys they have too many tempests, time to go home"
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#317 - 2013-10-08 17:09:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
CCP Rise wrote:
Can you convince me that they are? The most popular Recon sees less airtime than a Stabber. I'm sure that won't sound sufficient but I'm not sure how it could be proven.

Quote:
that sounds like a shrug off and a dismissal of our views like
I feel like acknowledging this type of thing may not be smart but if it isn't obvious from my interaction here on the forums I can say it very straight forwardly - I would never intentionally dismiss the input of players, no matter how much I might disagree.


Eventually if there is a problem, it lies within ECM mechanics but Fozzie has already acknowledged that.

E-war ships are like CC in every game : They are annoying by nature (SWTOR even introduced this famous immunity bar to controls), but a crucial part of game mechanics.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#318 - 2013-10-08 17:09:46 UTC
I can change Stabber to Cerberus and it's still true, and training time is similar.

I'm not saying this is a perfect way of identifying power, just saying that screaming recons are OP isn't either and I'm not sure how we're going to get anywhere.

@ccp_rise
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#319 - 2013-10-08 17:15:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
CCP Rise wrote:
I can change Stabber to Cerberus and it's still true, and training time is similar.

I'm not saying this is a perfect way of identifying power, just saying that screaming recons are OP isn't either and I'm not sure how we're going to get anywhere.


If they are not already the most dangerous ship in the game (without frigate mobility), why are they almost always primary for any small gang? Ive seen gangs drop webs on a 2 bil tengu in order to clear a rapier off the field faster, and pretty much any small gang would do the same.

A single uncontrolled recon kills entire gangs. Ive been in fights where the entire engagement is us testing the tank of a huginn with reps on it, deciding we cant break it before we are all dead, and just warp out after like 20s.
ArmyOfMe
African Atomic.
#320 - 2013-10-08 17:16:57 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
I can change Stabber to Cerberus and it's still true, and training time is similar.

I'm not saying this is a perfect way of identifying power, just saying that screaming recons are OP isn't either and I'm not sure how we're going to get anywhere.

and yet once again you neglected to look at t3 ew statsBlink

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.