These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
11 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

[Rubicon 1.1] Interceptor Agility Tweak

First post First post
Author
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2014-01-16 13:06:28 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Overall the Rubicon Interceptor rebalance was a smashing success. We're very happy with the player reaction, with the gameplay involved in flying Interceptors, and with the effect on other areas of EVE.

However we think the gameplay on both sides would be a bit more compelling and the balance between Inties and other frigates would be a bit better if they had slightly weaker agility. We're going to make a tweak to agility in 1.1 and continue to monitor the results.

Every Interceptor is getting a slight agility nerf in this pass, with the missile ceptors (Crow and Malediction) getting bigger changes than the others since they have proven extremely powerful in other ways (especially in groups). On average this will result in a 10% longer align time for the class.

The balance of having Interceptors with more speed (and warp speed and bubble immunity) and Faction Frigates with better agility is one we believe will help keep the frigate pvp landscape diverse and exciting.

Agility (as a modifier on mass) affects the turning time (often measured as align time) of ships. Lower is better.
The align times listed below are for a hypothetical character with 0 skills.


CRUSADER
Mobility (agility / align time): 3.2 (+0.1) / 4.66 (+0.15)

=============================================================================

MALEDICTION
Mobility (agility / align time): 3.7 (+0.55) / 5.12 (+0.76)

=============================================================================

RAPTOR
Mobility (agility / align time): 3.35 (+0.15) / 4.64 (+0.21)

=============================================================================

CROW
Mobility (agility / align time): 3.7 (+0.6) / 5.46 (+0.88)

=============================================================================

TARANIS
Mobility (agility / align time): 3.25 (+0.25) / 4.82 (+0.37)

=============================================================================

ARES
Mobility (agility / align time): 3.35 (+0.25) / 4.6 (+0.21)

=============================================================================

CLAW
Mobility (agility / align time): 3.15 (+0.15) / 4.8 (+0.23)

=============================================================================

STILETTO
Mobility (agility / align time): 3.5 (+0.4) / 4.95 (+0.57)


These changes will be on SISI shortly for you to try out.
Let us know what you think!

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

#2 - 2014-01-16 13:09:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
1st again!

EDIT:

Oh I'm on a roll today! As to the OP: I've seen a few vids of the Inty's post-1.0 and I have to say wow! Think it was the A Murder of Crows but 10% seems reasonable to me but then I'm not a professional interceptor pilot...yet Shocked
#3 - 2014-01-16 13:13:40 UTC
^^^^^^^^
dude, noone cares
#4 - 2014-01-16 13:37:11 UTC
Here's a hypothetical question for you CCP. In your opinion, what sort of scan resolution should be required to catch an interceptor after it has just jumped through a stargate?

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

WE FORM V0LTA
#5 - 2014-01-16 13:39:59 UTC  |  Edited by: JD No7
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question for you CCP. In your opinion, what sort of scan resolution should be required to catch an interceptor after it has just jumped through a stargate?


This. As it stands they are virtually uncatchable, even with sensor boosts etc. Stupidly easy to get a cyno into system now.
#6 - 2014-01-16 13:47:07 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question for you CCP. In your opinion, what sort of scan resolution should be required to catch an interceptor after it has just jumped through a stargate?

That depends...... how much effort has the interceptor pilot put into making his ship fast & uncatchable.....
Or has he shield tanked it & plated it to make it slow & sluggish.

Or to put it better. How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.
Nuclear Confusion
#7 - 2014-01-16 13:50:42 UTC
****** nerf, for once i was enjoying flying inties.

兵者,詭道也。故能而示之不能,用而示之不用,近而示之遠,遠而示之近

**Sun Tzu **©

Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2014-01-16 13:53:35 UTC
One good fix at a time. Well done.
#9 - 2014-01-16 13:58:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
Tronjay the'3rd wrote:
****** nerf, for once i was enjoying flying inties.


For the sake of 10% you're really this upset? <5.12 second align time with 0 Skills...I wonder what it is fitted and skilled? <2 seconds? Instawarp perhaps with Implants.

Might have to jump on and test on SiSi but it's not that massive a change and I don't think it'll be game breaking for all the new guys that have jumped into Interceptors since 1.0. I for one have trained it to Level 1 for quick transit but then I got my Leopard *bows*.
Pandemic Legion
#10 - 2014-01-16 13:59:28 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question for you CCP. In your opinion, what sort of scan resolution should be required to catch an interceptor after it has just jumped through a stargate?

That depends...... how much effort has the interceptor pilot put into making his ship fast & uncatchable.....
Or has he shield tanked it & plated it to make it slow & sluggish.

Or to put it better. How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.


no ship should be uncatchable.
#11 - 2014-01-16 14:01:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
Jack bubu wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question for you CCP. In your opinion, what sort of scan resolution should be required to catch an interceptor after it has just jumped through a stargate?

That depends...... how much effort has the interceptor pilot put into making his ship fast & uncatchable.....
Or has he shield tanked it & plated it to make it slow & sluggish.

Or to put it better. How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.


no ship should be uncatchable.


Well good luck with that...Shocked. I don't think he meant take it literally but if you can lock & scram before he aligns and warps then all good. If not then he fitted it better\had better skills for getting away than you did for catching him.
Tactical-Retreat
#12 - 2014-01-16 14:11:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
LOL WTF ?

WIth Eve only ticking every second its already a pain to stay at point range when you're going that fast, yet here is an agility nerf ! :(

As long as they take more than one second to align (which is clearly the case here), interceptors are lockable. An agility nerf won't help incompetent people from trying (and failing) to lock interceptors with battleships, their complaints will remain. However, it will impair their combat ability. I mentionned point range, but what about, say, blaster range ? It's very VERY hard to fly already.

Edit : Actually the truth is that the minimum should be two seconds. But the point is still valid : Travel agility might need a nerf, but not combat agility.

See my new role bonus proposal in page two to adress both issues.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

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

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

#13 - 2014-01-16 14:17:27 UTC
Why do the 2 missile ceptors get the biggest hit here? why does the crow deserve a 1s slower base align time compared to the ares?

just curious about the reasons.
#14 - 2014-01-16 14:20:58 UTC
well, we all knew the interceptor awesomeness wouldn't last long. Shocked
C C P Alliance
#15 - 2014-01-16 14:27:33 UTC
darius mclever wrote:
Why do the 2 missile ceptors get the biggest hit here? why does the crow deserve a 1s slower base align time compared to the ares?

just curious about the reasons.


Every interceptor should have their own strengths and weaknesses that make the decision of which to fly interesting.
The Crow has excellent damage application at long ranges (even when it is flying at high speeds), four very valuable midslots and the longest lock range of any interceptor. It's weaknesses are a bit less speed than most others, lower theoretical top end damage, as well as slightly weaker agility.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Gallente Federation
#16 - 2014-01-16 14:27:58 UTC
And it just so happens that many people have been using 1.9s align time Maledictions to harass and kill otherwise unkillable nullsec ratters, most dominantly Goon ones. And now they're getting nerfed hardcore, making them unusable for that task entirely. :tinfoil:
#17 - 2014-01-16 14:32:33 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
darius mclever wrote:
Why do the 2 missile ceptors get the biggest hit here? why does the crow deserve a 1s slower base align time compared to the ares?

just curious about the reasons.


Every interceptor should have their own strengths and weaknesses that make the decision of which to fly interesting.
The Crow has excellent damage application at long ranges (even when it is flying at high speeds), four very valuable midslots and the longest lock range of any interceptor. It's weaknesses are a bit less speed than most others, lower theoretical top end damage, as well as slightly weaker agility.


Reasons for the Malediction are more or less the same?
Almost Awesome.
#18 - 2014-01-16 14:35:59 UTC
Altrue wrote:
LOL WTF ?

WIth Eve only ticking every second its already a pain to stay at point range when you're going that fast, yet here is an agility nerf ! :(

As long as they take more than one second to align (which is clearly the case here), interceptors are lockable. An agility nerf won't help incompetent people from trying (and failing) to lock interceptors with battleships, their complaints will remain. However, it will impair their combat ability. I mentionned point range, but what about, say, blaster range ? It's very VERY hard to fly already.

Would it help if they got a reduction to MWD mass penalty?
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2014-01-16 14:36:14 UTC
darius mclever wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
darius mclever wrote:
Why do the 2 missile ceptors get the biggest hit here? why does the crow deserve a 1s slower base align time compared to the ares?

just curious about the reasons.


Every interceptor should have their own strengths and weaknesses that make the decision of which to fly interesting.
The Crow has excellent damage application at long ranges (even when it is flying at high speeds), four very valuable midslots and the longest lock range of any interceptor. It's weaknesses are a bit less speed than most others, lower theoretical top end damage, as well as slightly weaker agility.


Reasons for the Malediction are more or less the same?


The maledictions' biggest strength, its align time, got nerfed hard, making it unusable for certain ratter-harassing, travelling and cynoing applications, making it inferior to the others
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2014-01-16 14:44:57 UTC  |  Edited by: 4gn1
Agility is extremly curcial for holding an orbit without loosing the point and still not come close into scram web range. This is already hard enough as the point bonis are not at that much difference especially at the short points.

Interceptors were not uncatchable and if - they were they were not fit too well for combat. This change is nonsense and will lead to problems in the Tackle role. I say again Tackle role - not Travel role.

This nerf comes to soon - people cry because they dont want to make any effort to counter it!!!
11 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump