These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 1.1] Interceptor Agility Tweak

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MonkeyMagic Thiesant
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2014-01-17 05:14:19 UTC
Re'doubt wrote:

Not to knock you or anything but I don't see why its such a big bad terrible thing to have a ship that can insta warp. But having gate camps that can insta lock is perfectly fine and acceptable.


Well, you can still do that, just the four ships I listed now need to chose to sacrifice a low slot or a rig to get the same speed of align they had before. They'll still merrily skip through gatecamps as before :-)


It also makes the likes of the fast align faction frigs (Astero/Daredevil etc) more worth using in a lot of roles, which is fine by me given their cost.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#82 - 2014-01-17 05:48:12 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Verb Object wrote:
More evidence that goon tears are a major component in driving balance iteration~


yup.....

Balance iteration...funny term.

And the theory that goons are running the show is like saying gravity is just a theory.

No.

(Also "gravity" is not a theory, it's an observed effect. Newton's laws of gravity are a theory. General relativity is a theory. Saying that something is "just a theory" is stupid because it fundamentally misunderstands the concept of theory in the first place.)


I think you miss the sarcasm.

Some people have a theory that goons lobbied successfully, as usual, for the changes that they wanted.
It is no more a "theory" than the "observed effects" of gravity. Newton's theories and equations have been proven through countless experiments and "observed effects", just like goons' control of the development of Eve has been proven through countless "observed effects".

Now, you can counter that as soon as one aberration, like the ESS, shows up, that blows out of the water the fact that goons run the game. But that ESS hits everyone in null, and we have yet to see the high sec version, which I expect will give the goons even more of a windfall than the high sec PoCo's did.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2014-01-17 06:14:42 UTC
So you believe having interceptors being pretty much impossible to catch is good game balance?

Did you think CCP was catering to Goons with the change that made them that way in the first place?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#84 - 2014-01-17 06:19:16 UTC
First you buff interceptors, now you nerf them.
I see CCP is very bored.

Then why did you buff them in the first place ?
Shocked
Meyr
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
OnlyFleets.
#85 - 2014-01-17 06:23:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Fun fact, I actually experimented with MWD mass penalty reductions when I was doing the Navy Cruisers. It's so overpowered that I had a blast with it on the test server but it isn't something I expect we'll see on TQ any time soon.

The best thing about it was what happened when you combine with an oversized MWD.


Fozzie -

Interceptors need to be catchable, yes, but are you REALLY going to equate Navy Cruisers, that actually can be fit to equip an oversized MWD, with an Interceptor that, at best, by giving up almost every other fitting option, MIGHT be able to fit an oversized AB, without any of the advantages a Tengu has?

REALLY?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#86 - 2014-01-17 06:31:18 UTC
Maxeyra wrote:


you cant fit enough LO in an inty to cyno without 1-2 expanders which make you easily catchable by a camp that is prepared for it, and this doesnt fix the cyno issue anyway as people will just fit a cloak and mwd+cloak into warp regardless.




This is not true. With a proper Cyno alt (i.e. Cyno V), you can fit enough LO into an interceptor using just one rig. And it still aligns in 1.7 seconds. And it still has one WCS.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Jafit McJafitson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2014-01-17 07:33:58 UTC
People complaining about uncatchable interceptors because of interdiction nullification and fast aligns should probably take an interceptor, load it up with some nice expensive blueprints or a few plex, and then fly blindly around lowsec sometime, and then tell me how uncatchable they are.

Smartbombing battleships are a thing, and people have been using then to catch small, fast, fragile ships since before interdictiors were even in the game.

I understand though. Why adapt and use a tactic like smartbombing that the small fast ship has a chance of evading by not being stupid? It's far easier to just get CCP to change the ships so that they're more susceptible to instalocking camps, which can't be avoided without prior knowledge of their presence. An interceptor pilot's foreknowledge of enemy camps is unlikely however because, due to the nature of the ship, you will probably be using it in hostile territory.

People complaining about interceptors being used as cynos, I'm looking forward to CCP adding a timer to covops cloaks so that ships can't break gatecloak and then activate their covops cloaks before a ship has had a chance to volley them. We have to give validation to the people who are out there diligently guarding their space against cynos.
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
#88 - 2014-01-17 08:52:54 UTC
CCP just admit that Interceptor nullifier was a terrible idea and remove the bonus.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2014-01-17 08:56:48 UTC
Marian Devers wrote:
CCP just admit that Interceptor nullifier was a terrible idea and remove the bonus.



The idea is not terrible.. just maybe on the wrong ship.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
seth Hendar
I love you miners
#90 - 2014-01-17 09:02:45 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's exactly what the OP is explaining, because of the server tick and how the game works, anythiyng warpin under 2 sec is uncatchable,wich is most often seen with ceptors, pods, shuttles and for some inty like frigs.

note that i realy appreciate that a CCP dev explain the root of the issue, and take real mesures in the intend to fix it Big smile
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2014-01-17 09:49:26 UTC
seth Hendar 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's exactly what the OP is explaining, because of the server tick and how the game works, anythiyng warpin under 2 sec is uncatchable,wich is most often seen with ceptors, pods, shuttles and for some inty like frigs.

note that i realy appreciate that a CCP dev explain the root of the issue, and take real mesures in the intend to fix it Big smile



They cannto fix it without doubling the load of the servers....

Live with it. Tiny things will not be caughts when they want to avoid being caught.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Mark Cato
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#92 - 2014-01-17 09:59:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Cato
This strikes me as a decent idea for the Combat Interceptors, but I'm not happy with how it will affect the fleet Interceptors. This balance will hurt the Fleet Interceptor's main function, which is tackle, which is a bad idea. Agility is useful for maintaining orbits and manual piloting, since Inties move at incredible speeds they are already difficult to pilot. Any nerf to their agility makes tackling and holding tackle even harder.

Why choose this balance? Surely there's a lot of other options for you to consider? You admit the issue with missile interceptors being OP in your post, but why not do the obvious and nerf their damage projection? For example, I love the Crow, but I'll be the first to admit it's OP: it's fantastic at both tackle and damage projection. A fleet Inty is a tackle ship, not a DPS ship, yet here you are nerfing tackle, not damage projection, when damage projection is the problem in the first place!

Regarding gatecamps. First, most standard Inty fits will not be able to jump through every gatecamp. If you want a travel Inty you fit it specifically for agility to get through gatecamps and such a fit will not be useful in another role, like tackle. I doubt your nerf will really change the ability of a travel fit Inty to jump through most camps, while it will make tackle harder. So you're hurting tackle ability without really changing the ability to go through gatecamps.

And so what if an Inty can jump through gatecamps? Eve follows a kind of rock-paper-scissors mechanic where every tactic should have a counter. Inties have various counters. A RLM Caracal or Bellicose can tear through them for example, or any fast ship with short point and web. What about the counter for gatecamps? Surely some ships should have the ability to jump through gatecamps, thereby acting as a counter to that tactic? Why is the gatecamping tactic being privileged over other tactics? It's not like Inties have giant cargo holds, so they can hardly be used to move any goods aside from blueprints and implants. And if you don't like the idea of an uncatchable Inty being used to light cynos, then why not simply remove the ability to fit a cynosural field generator, or nerf their cargo hold even further?

I can't claim to have a global view of Eve, but it hardly seems that Inties are being used exclusively over other frigates. T1 frigates are still prized for their low cost and the fact that almost anybody will engage them. Faction frigates are still heavily used in faction war for their ability to kill T1 frigs in novice plexes. A T2 ship like an Inty can't go into novice plexes and so aren't used all that often in faction war.

In conclusion. This change might work for combat Inties, but don't touch a Fleet Inty's ability to tackle! Nerf its damage projection, it's not supposed to doing damage anyway!

Edit: Inty roam uncatchable? http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=21420775
Xirin
Estrale Frontiers
#93 - 2014-01-17 11:38:45 UTC
How about instead of breaking what isnt broken we remove bubble immunity and call it a day.
Tsobai Hashimoto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#94 - 2014-01-17 12:25:46 UTC
Altrue wrote:
4gn1 wrote:
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!!!


Again that's perfectly true.

Is it me or are people actually surprised to see an interceptor able to slip past blockades and catch stuff ?
Then what ? Logi will get a rep nerf because people are complaining they are repping more than logi drones ? :/

CCP Fozzie wrote:

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.


If you are unsatisfied about the state of missile interceptors, maybe now should be the time to take a look at the missile system in its globality, instead of nerfing missile ships with random stats that will not affect his damage application, but will affect his ability to tackle, which is much more impairing.

This does not mean that I share your analysis of the crow's damage ability. In fact I find it very wrong :( :
1- The Crow has excellent damage application at long ranges even when flying at high speeds. Indeed it does, but its dps with light missiles is quite low. In addition to that, fitting requirements for light missiles makes it impossible to use its other strenghts (i.e med slots) at the same time. You can use ridiculously overpriced meta4 launchers to ease that eventually. And of course, needless to say, dps is not very important for interceptors...
2- The Crow has four very valuable mid slots. Indeed it does, and indeed they are very valuable ! Because if you substract the MWD and Point that an interceptor MUST have, you're left with two med slots for the tank. That's one less compared to three low armor ceptors. Just look at your metrics for the Raptor (which is shield and has three med slots) and try to prove that I'm wrong :D. Also again, that's two med slots that cannot be put to good use at the same time than its damage application. Due to fitting requirements.
3- The Crow has the longest lock range of any interceptor. That is true (by only 7% more than a turret ship like the Ares, but why not...). However every interceptor has enough targeting range to keep target during the full long point range. And at these speeds, the extra range is ridiculous since it reprensent one second of piloting.
4- Nerfing its agility wont prevent tracel ceptors from prevaling, which is normal by the way. But it will cause issues during combat, a moment where current agility stats could even have used a buff.

So, overall, due to secondary and debatable advantages, you're nerfing one of the primary stats of this ship. That is not cool ! Sad
Also, calling it a "Tweak" when you're taking away almost a FULL SECOND of align time (unskilled I know but I wanted to sound dramatic :D) on a ship relying only on agility and speed... That's a bold move ! Like making a post about, say, "Carrier Brandwidth Tweak" to remove 20% of their brandwidth ^^

Edit :
The solution!
Let me suggest you a compromise. If you want to nerf their agility for travel, why not giving them a role bonus that reduces their mass when using MWDs. (Effectively removing the mass penalty, or even going further and decreasing their mass). This way, interception in combat remains the same (or can even be improved), but interceptors for travel are nerfed. Even if you reduce their mass during MWD, you cannot use that to travel because of the one second tick that will negate this benefit (the interceptor will loose the second of acceleration before activation of the module) and because of the sig radius penalty that decrease lock time on an MWDIng interceptor.



Fozzie! Read this!

This will fix travel time but not crush ceptors ability to tackle, it might take a bit more work and coding but, it would be worth it for the balance of the game..... look into this! Please
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2014-01-17 13:47:33 UTC
Xirin wrote:
How about instead of breaking what isnt broken we remove bubble immunity and call it a day.



because each time some 0.0 dwellers complains of bubble immunity, they are proovign to CCP that they achieved their desired result and that Bubble immunity should stay.

THey wanted to ahve the EXACT result that you guys keep complaining .THey want less safety for 0.0 ratters. They want that vast empty space becorme more dangerous and that controlling a territory menas being covered by eyes of a complex intel netwrok.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
bubble trout
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#96 - 2014-01-17 15:11:32 UTC
BUFF MINMATAR
Voyager Arran
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2014-01-17 15:49:52 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Xirin wrote:
How about instead of breaking what isnt broken we remove bubble immunity and call it a day.



because each time some 0.0 dwellers complains of bubble immunity, they are proovign to CCP that they achieved their desired result and that Bubble immunity should stay.

THey wanted to ahve the EXACT result that you guys keep complaining .THey want less safety for 0.0 ratters. They want that vast empty space becorme more dangerous and that controlling a territory menas being covered by eyes of a complex intel netwrok.


The problem right now is that with the combination of bubble immunity, align times under two seconds being mechanically impossible to catch on gates, and the ability of some Interceptors to engage safely outside scram/web/neut range, there isn't actually anything a nullsec alliance with an extensive intelligence network and an active defense fleet can do to police their space from Interceptor gangs other than hoping they fall for the one obvious gimmick that can kill them or just hoping their ratters are smart enough dock up and wait to leave.


And frankly, if you want to kill more ratters (and who doesn't?), you don't just want to make ratting more dangerous, because all that does is make people look at the risk:reward involved in nullsec ratting and decide to go do something else for their money. I used to rat in a Naga before Oddysey added tackling frigates to anomalies that I couldn't deal with safely, and I was a big fat killmail waiting for the first frigate that caught me. The tackle frigs largely brought an end to blaster ratting and made people were far less willing to park their Vindicators in hubs, and it also meant pretty much every ratting ship had a realistic option to deal with lone frigates and brought an end to Evan Skyblater's reign of terror in a solo Purifier. I kept that up until the Interceptor changes in Rubicon made even that too dangerous for my tastes, and now I just support myself through other means. The net result for you is one less target out in space.

If you want to kill ratters, you want changes that make people want to rat more and engage in riskier ratting behavior, not stuff that makes them fly super-paranoid or make Faction Warfare alts.


Unless you're suggesting that you should be able to catch even prepared, aware ratters watching intel channels, in which case my question for you is why you think there would be any ratters out there at all exposing themselves to that kind of danger for 20mil ticks?
Lidia Caderu
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#98 - 2014-01-17 16:18:41 UTC
Now if can warp through bubble you will be caught on other side. What is the point?? Can you create ONE ship for safe travel, even with small cargo, immune to bubbles, low inertia and agility and with low slots for stabs
ZheoTheThird
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2014-01-17 16:18:48 UTC
Voyager Arran wrote:
ZheoTheThird wrote:
[
You can't run from smartbombs.Besides, inties picking their fights and getting in and out of a fight when they chose to is what they're supposed to do.

Hint: the fit we were running had nothing to do with luck. We were gimping our tanking and damage dealing capabilities to the maximum in return for 100% safety of gatecamps. Our fits weren't able to engage anything else than a lone ratter, but somehow that must've been classified as OP...



You can't run from smartbombs, but you could also try doing literally anything other than fleet-warping yourselves unscouted from gate to gate all the way across a region if you want to avoid them. It's not like you don't know the possibility of it exists or something and if you take basic proactive measures you can completely avoid it. The only way for you to end up in a pile on top of the Disco Tempest is to put yourselves there.

Anyways, your problem isn't that Ishtars are too hard to catch, because your frigates are still perfectly capable of that and half of them are probably literally AFK anyways. Your problem is that defense fleets are too effective and now it's not mechanically impossible for them to catch you. Why do you think a group of PvP pilots actively seeking to defend their own space shouldn't be able to do so?


But you are able to defend yourself. You are able to get rid of us. You are able to catch the uncatchable maledictions. Smartbombs and elaborate baits. You can't bait, because your baits are terribly obvious and you can't smartbomb either, because for some reason, coordinating more than two people seems to be an impossible feat for your FCs.

Again, why should the ship get nerfed? There's a simple, easy to use counter, not our fault if you lack the skill to pull it off.
Morwennon
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#100 - 2014-01-17 16:24:07 UTC
Man, that's mean making those evil malediction-flying ratter gankers fit a third istab and one cheap implant to retain their <2s warp times.