These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: The Svipul Tactical Destroyer andProjectile Changes

First post First post
Author
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#201 - 2015-01-23 10:51:59 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:

My money is on hybrids for the Caldari as the Flycatcher and Corax already do missiles. I'll also go out on a limb and predict 6-5-3 for Caldari and 6-3-5 for Gallente.

Wouldn't bet on that. Both amarr and matar destros have 15 slots, both using "racial" weapons. LM for caldari, rails for galls.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#202 - 2015-01-23 10:59:36 UTC
Forgot the probe launcher slot. Fixed.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#203 - 2015-01-23 11:17:15 UTC
Kinborough wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

I've a hunch that niche will be filled extremely well by the Caldari tactical destroyer. I anticipate it having an even longer lock range in sharpshooter mode than the Cormorant. This combined with small rails' exceedingly long firing range and the T3's greater number of total mid/low slots and powergrid will allow the beast to pluck at targets very near to the limits of sniper Ferox range. This will additionally act as a counter to dampening as it will take a lot to bring the ship's targeting range below Javelin range, which will still be high enough to track targets pretty easily and find a good kiting range. Besides, makes sense it would be Caldari (Gallente's sworn enemies) to counter it, rather than Minmatar, Gallente's allies.


Not a bad idea, I was just spitballin' an idea.
Maybe have the sharpshooter get a BIG bonus to sensor strength then :P

It might be neat if they all had a soft bonus to their opponent faction's EWAR:
Confessor: kind of does because it fits armor plates instead of shield extenders
Svipul: elite tracking and falloff bonuses with less emphasis on base DPS, making it difficult to use a speed defense or tracking disruptors to actually hurt their output - also makes em into a good flyswatter
Gallente: high sensor strength of course
Caldari: what I said above

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#204 - 2015-01-23 12:50:56 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
I agree for the most part. Arty is fun, but you have to go into it knowing your weakness (tank/rof). Embrace the alpha, and fit around it. You can't skimp on the dps mods, or you won't have the alpha to kill anything quickly. The other thing about flying minmatar, get used to having to use 1-3% PG implants to make the better fits work. Idk if this is for racial flavor, or some remnant of the past (likely), but it makes fits unnecessarily expensive, and sub-optimal in most cases.

There is 1 ship that can fit artillery/tank/prop without PG mods, and its not a minmatar ship (gnosis).


I can get a 780 alpha out to 60 km with a Kestrel. Meta MSE. One fitting mod. A Rifter with a full rack of 280's, one fitting mod, no tank, and ignoring it's utility high slot can get a 750 alpha out to 8 km with around 19 km of falloff. Not to beat a dead horse but the fitting sacrifices are just too great to justify using the ship even if it will have an 825 alpha after the buff. Arty fitting AND individual ship fittings both need to be looked at.


You are not getting 780 alpha, unless you have target painter w/ rigor. You have 780 paper alpha, but you won't apply it all without either web, or TP/rigor. You need 2 fitting mods to be able to fit an MSE. The rifter is just terrible altogether, it has some uses with scram kiting with a/c's, but arty is way too hard to fit.

LML's are limited in fitting because they don't have tracking to contend with. You still hit and apply damage regardless of what the opponent does. So, their fitting requirements are semi-understandable. But arty has tracking, less selectable damage (compared to missiles), can miss, and has absurd fitting requirements.

Otherwise, i agree, as that was kind of what my whole post was about. Arty fitting is pretty terrible, only in a few cases can it be workable, but you have to invest a bit of isk just for it to work on a frigate.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#205 - 2015-01-23 14:00:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Kinborough wrote:
I would go so far to say have the locking range bonus on sharpshooter mode be increased so that it would have a niche as a soft counter to dampening,

I've a hunch that niche will be filled extremely well by the Caldari tactical destroyer. I anticipate it having an even longer lock range in sharpshooter mode than the Cormorant. This combined with small rails' exceedingly long firing range and the T3's greater number of total mid/low slots and powergrid will allow the beast to pluck at targets very near to the limits of sniper Ferox range. This will additionally act as a counter to dampening as it will take a lot to bring the ship's targeting range below Javelin range, which will still be high enough to track targets pretty easily and find a good kiting range. Besides, makes sense it would be Caldari (Gallente's sworn enemies) to counter it, rather than Minmatar, Gallente's allies.

You're assuming that it's going to have hybrids at all; since they likely won't be doing drones at all with any of these things, the likely route will be to have the caldari one with some general but strong missile bonuses with superior kite ability (LM flycatcher would be a good parallel), and the gallente one be a hellbeast with blaster or rails.


My money is on hybrids for the Caldari as the Flycatcher and Corax already do missiles. I'll also go out on a limb and predict 7-5-3 for Caldari and 7-3-5 for Gallente.

I gotta say; there's no reason for them to be using the same weapon system at all. The fact that they already have a few ships that use one type of weapon is irrelevant to how the new ship will be set up offensively, especially with these modes favoring sniper bonuses. That being said, I do agree with you on the prediction for slot layout. The caldari and gallente ones are gonna be where it's at; both tough, mean ships with excellent flexibility.

They're be no point in having two of these t3 dessies that run the same weapons and are only different with their defenses and a few other tidbits. Besides, think of how fun a light missile caldari t3 dessy would be. With combat probes. :D
Esmanpir
Raccoon's with LightSabers
#206 - 2015-01-23 15:10:03 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Love the name but need a pronunciation guide from one of the Norse brethren or we are gonna massacre it

m


Need this for the entire game.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2015-01-23 15:12:00 UTC
Maybe Gallente tactical destroyer in sniper mode, fit with rails, will be the new cormorant.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Acel Tokalov
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2015-01-23 19:42:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Acel Tokalov
After thinking about the projectile weapon changes I came up with a list of particular issues that currently exist with projectile weapons and how they apply to the ships themselves,

  • Small and medium autocannons are currently only useful for brawling inside 10km or kiting at 10-20km (if you have falloff bonuses and use only barrage) but none of the Minmatar frigates and cruisers are really made for brawling except the Rifter, Wolf, and to a lesser extent the Rupture (and the only reason the Rupture works is people underestimate it and don't shoot you first)

  • Trying to kite with autocannons requires significant SP and sacrificing module/rig slots to get as much falloff as possible so you can actually apply enough damage to compete with Pulse+Scorch or Rails+Javelin (and blasters aren't really capable of kiting).

  • Of all the long range weapon types artillery is the most difficult to fit because of their significant powergrid requirements for all sizes. The Jaguar the T2 frigate that should be expected to be an artillery ship due to its optimal bonus can't fit even the smaller 250mm artillery without sacrificing a number of rig/module slots to increase powergrid. Of all the cruisers the only ship capable of mounting a full set of 720mm artillery without a number of PG mods is the Loki with the powergrid subsystem.

  • Beams do suffer from the same powergrid issue that artillery does, but Amarr ships typically have more powergrid than Minmatar ships and they don't need to dedicate as many fitting slots to increasing the DPS output of the ship, because while alpha damage is great if you can kill an enemy in one salvo, that is often not a possibility in small fleets and solo pvp, and as a Minmatar pilot you need to end a fight ASAP because you typically have the weakest tank (especially because of how many slots you had to sacrifice to fit your arty).
    Torei Dutalis
    IceBox Inc.
    Rogue Caldari Union
    #209 - 2015-01-23 21:07:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Torei Dutalis
    Acel Tokalov wrote:
    After thinking about the projectile weapon changes I came up with a list of particular issues that currently exist with projectile weapons and how they apply to the ships themselves,

  • Small and medium autocannons are currently only useful for brawling inside 10km or kiting at 10-20km (if you have falloff bonuses and use only barrage) but none of the Minmatar frigates and cruisers are really made for brawling except the Rifter, Wolf, and to a lesser extent the Rupture (and the only reason the Rupture works is people underestimate it and don't shoot you first)

  • This is primarily a problem with minmatar T1 frigate hulls being less than awesome. Also, the slasher is really the new go to t1 frigate for projectiles. The rifter is more of a figurehead these days.

    Acel Tokalov wrote:

  • Trying to kite with autocannons requires significant SP and sacrificing module/rig slots to get as much falloff as possible so you can actually apply enough damage to compete with Pulse+Scorch or Rails+Javelin (and blasters aren't really capable of kiting).

  • More sp than....what? Other t2 weapons? People seem to be thinking that falloff and optimal should work the same way. They don't and shouldn't. Falloff should have more absolute range, but worse damage projection. If that scenario is not happening then yes there should be changes made. But as far as I am aware that is not the case. As to why artillery falls at the bottom of the tracking pile and autocannons are in the middle however is something that's a bit odd to me but hey, I'm probably in the minority.

    Acel Tokalov wrote:

  • Of all the long range weapon types artillery is the most difficult to fit because of their significant powergrid requirements for all sizes. The Jaguar the T2 frigate that should be expected to be an artillery ship due to its optimal bonus can't fit even the smaller 250mm artillery without sacrificing a number of rig/module slots to increase powergrid. Of all the cruisers the only ship capable of mounting a full set of 720mm artillery without a number of PG mods is the Loki with the powergrid subsystem.


  • I would refer you to the fitting requirements of beam lasers. Top caliber beams and artys (for small and mids) are almost identical in fitting (with beams taking more cpu). Smaller caliber arties do take slightly more fitting (1 more pg and 2 cpu). Again, the issue you are having is with the ship hulls and not the weapon systems.

    Acel Tokalov wrote:

    Beams do suffer from the same powergrid issue that artillery does, but Amarr ships typically have more powergrid than Minmatar ships and they don't need to dedicate as many fitting slots to increasing the DPS output of the ship, because while alpha damage is great if you can kill an enemy in one salvo, that is often not a possibility in small fleets and solo pvp, and as a Minmatar pilot you need to end a fight ASAP because you typically have the weakest tank (especially because of how many slots you had to sacrifice to fit your arty).


    Glad you see we are on the same page once we get to this part of your post, at least as far as facts go. However, you seem to be wanting to have alpha and dps, which are separated for a reason. The current 10% boost to damage is, well, not needed in my humble opinion. For those of you who do not FW or small gang/solo frigates/destroyers, arty thrashers are still a thing, they never went anywhere. They are also very good at gate camping other frig fleets. The svipul will be like a thrasher on crack in this regard.

    Now, could small arties maybe take a fitting shave of like 1 pg? Yes, sure, but any change of that nature should be very delicate. It is almost always better to tweak ships individually than a weapon system as a whole unless it is truly deserving of said tweaking.

    People seem to be so hung up on the svipul because it is not the ship they want. Sure, the MWD bonus on the defensive mode is wonky, but the optimal bonus is fine. And my previous sarcastic sounding post in this thread about the optimal bonus on this ship and the turret cap bonus on the confessor being balancing bonuses to keep the ships in line was actually rather serious. There are a decent amount of ships in the game that have what I would consider "joke" bonuses just to keep them in line due to apparent laziness on the part of the balancing team.
    Acel Tokalov
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #210 - 2015-01-23 22:14:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Acel Tokalov
    Torei Dutalis wrote:
    Acel Tokalov wrote:

  • Trying to kite with autocannons requires significant SP and sacrificing module/rig slots to get as much falloff as possible so you can actually apply enough damage to compete with Pulse+Scorch or Rails+Javelin (and blasters aren't really capable of kiting).

  • More sp than....what? Other t2 weapons? People seem to be thinking that falloff and optimal should work the same way. They don't and shouldn't. Falloff should have more absolute range, but worse damage projection. If that scenario is not happening then yes there should be changes made. But as far as I am aware that is not the case. As to why artillery falls at the bottom of the tracking pile and autocannons are in the middle however is something that's a bit odd to me but hey, I'm probably in the minority.

    Acel Tokalov wrote:

  • Of all the long range weapon types artillery is the most difficult to fit because of their significant powergrid requirements for all sizes. The Jaguar the T2 frigate that should be expected to be an artillery ship due to its optimal bonus can't fit even the smaller 250mm artillery without sacrificing a number of rig/module slots to increase powergrid. Of all the cruisers the only ship capable of mounting a full set of 720mm artillery without a number of PG mods is the Loki with the powergrid subsystem.


  • I would refer you to the fitting requirements of beam lasers. Top caliber beams and artys (for small and mids) are almost identical in fitting (with beams taking more cpu). Smaller caliber arties do take slightly more fitting (1 more pg and 2 cpu). Again, the issue you are having is with the ship hulls and not the weapon systems.

    Acel Tokalov wrote:

    Beams do suffer from the same powergrid issue that artillery does, but Amarr ships typically have more powergrid than Minmatar ships and they don't need to dedicate as many fitting slots to increasing the DPS output of the ship, because while alpha damage is great if you can kill an enemy in one salvo, that is often not a possibility in small fleets and solo pvp, and as a Minmatar pilot you need to end a fight ASAP because you typically have the weakest tank (especially because of how many slots you had to sacrifice to fit your arty).


    Glad you see we are on the same page once we get to this part of your post, at least as far as facts go. However, you seem to be wanting to have alpha and dps, which are separated for a reason. The current 10% boost to damage is, well, not needed in my humble opinion. For those of you who do not FW or small gang/solo frigates/destroyers, arty thrashers are still a thing, they never went anywhere. They are also very good at gate camping other frig fleets. The svipul will be like a thrasher on crack in this regard.

    Now, could small arties maybe take a fitting shave of like 1 pg? Yes, sure, but any change of that nature should be very delicate. It is almost always better to tweak ships individually than a weapon system as a whole unless it is truly deserving of said tweaking.

    People seem to be so hung up on the svipul because it is not the ship they want. Sure, the MWD bonus on the defensive mode is wonky, but the optimal bonus is fine. And my previous sarcastic sounding post in this thread about the optimal bonus on this ship and the turret cap bonus on the confessor being balancing bonuses to keep the ships in line was actually rather serious. There are a decent amount of ships in the game that have what I would consider "joke" bonuses just to keep them in line due to apparent laziness on the part of the balancing team.



    When I say that Minmatar and autocannons to be effective at kiting I am referring to the fact that unlike pulse+radio/scorch, autocannons are completely incapable of skirmishing on a ship that isn't bonused for falloff at skill lvl 4/5, with barrage, with range scripted tracking computers, tracking enhancers, or falloff rigs, and Trajectory Analysis V (a 5x skill). So for an effective Vagabond we are talking SP to use T2 guns so you can use barrage ammo, Trajectory Analysis 5, HAC 4/5, and mods for falloff just so you can get your falloff long enough to do reasonable damage with barrage. Compared to a Zealot with scorch that can easily cause 3x the damage a Vagabond can do at 40km while tanking better and the ability to swap to another ammo type instantly.


    Regarding the powergrid requirement of artillery, it isn't entirely a ship issue but it can be fixed by giving Minmatar ships more powergrid, or by making artillery take less powergrid, either way there is a serious issue that the Thrasher does not suffer from, but all the other Minmatar gunboats do. Also my point between beams and artillery is that while beams need mods to fit to the ship they also don't need damage mods to be effective in PVP. If you are complaining about a Thrasher(s) killing you with alpha in FW chances are you are either in a frigate or they have a fair number of Thrashers to your cruiser and at that point it wouldn't matter if they were in a Thrasher, Cormorant, Catalyst, or Coercer you are going to die, that is what destroyers are good at, glass cannon.

    With any ship that isn't the Thrasher, artillery is nearly useless in small gang and solo PVP because of the issues with fitting, the lack of range, and the low DPS which is why they are hampered even more because you have to sacrifice significantly more of your tank/DPS/speed/range in order to fit artillery. At least on Amarr ships with damage bonuses it isn't required to have at least 2 damage modules/rigs to do adequate DPS with beams and you still have tank to fall back on.
    Tara'Quoya Rax
    Atlantis Asteria
    #211 - 2015-01-23 22:20:15 UTC
    Please add a falloff bonus to the Svipul, or at least replace the optimal bonus with it. Falloff is the defining feature of projectile gunnery and should be the feature getting the bonus. Giving a minnie ship an optimal bonus is like giving an amarr ship a falloff bonus; it's just wrong...

    I also agree that the MWD sig reduction bonus in defensive mode makes no sense and basically gimps that mode.

    As it is right now, I wouldn't invest in a Svipul as a mere Thrasher or a Sabre is alot more cost effective.


    As for the ammo change, it's barely gonna be noticable below larges, unless you can stack up falloff bonuses (another reason why the Svipul should also be falloff based)
    Torei Dutalis
    IceBox Inc.
    Rogue Caldari Union
    #212 - 2015-01-23 23:20:20 UTC
    Acel Tokalov wrote:

    When I say that Minmatar and autocannons to be effective at kiting I am referring to the fact that unlike pulse+radio/scorch, autocannons are completely incapable of skirmishing on a ship that isn't bonused for falloff at skill lvl 4/5, with barrage, with range scripted tracking computers, tracking enhancers, or falloff rigs, and Trajectory Analysis V (a 5x skill). So for an effective Vagabond we are talking SP to use T2 guns so you can use barrage ammo, Trajectory Analysis 5, HAC 4/5, and mods for falloff just so you can get your falloff long enough to do reasonable damage with barrage. Compared to a Zealot with scorch that can easily cause 3x the damage a Vagabond can do at 40km while tanking better and the ability to swap to another ammo type instantly.


    I would submit to you that ACs are not meant to skirmish on small ships. They are meant to scramkite. The stabber, vaga, and cynabal can all be viable AC skirmish platforms. Not every ship that can fit ACs needs to be able to do that. Yes, they do less damage within the optimal range of lasers. That it how it is SUPPOSED to be. As per my previous post, ACs have more absolute range in falloff but project damage to a poorer degree. They also have significantly better tracking. Yes, the omen hulls and ships like the slicer have optimal bonuses, they are meant to project well. And really we should be talking about an omen navy here for skirmishing and not a zealot, as it just does it better. Your point on skill training is still moot. A zealot and a vaga take the same amount of skill training.

    Acel Tokalov wrote:

    Regarding the powergrid requirement of artillery, it isn't entirely a ship issue but it can be fixed by giving Minmatar ships more powergrid, or by making artillery take less powergrid, either way there is a serious issue that the Thrasher does not suffer from, but all the other Minmatar gunboats do. Also my point between beams and artillery is that while beams need mods to fit to the ship they also don't need mods to be effective in PVP. if you are complaining about a Thrasher(s) killing you with alpha in FW chances are you are either in a frigate or they have a fair number of Thrashers to your cruiser and at that point it wouldn't matter if they were in a Thrasher, Cormorant, Catalyst, or Coercer you are going to die, that is what destroyers are good at, glass cannon.


    Could you be more specific on what you mean by "effective in pvp" some examples would be nice. Also, I am not complaining about thrashers, just using them as a counterpoint to your previous argument. And yes, I hope artillery thrashers are fighting other frigate/destroyer hulls, and not attempting to solo cruisers (assuming both pilots are legitimately fitted and not brain damaged). Firetails are also decent with artillery.

    Acel Tokalov wrote:

    With any ship that isn't the Thrasher, artillery is nearly useless in small gang and solo PVP because of the issues with fitting, the lack of range, and the low DPS which is why they are hampered even more because you have to sacrifice significantly more of your tank/DPS/speed/range in order to fit artillery. At least on Amarr ships with damage bonuses it isn't required to have at least 2 damage modules/rigs to do adequate DPS with beams and you still have tank to fall back on.


    I really like how you preface this section. See previous comment about firetail. With its high alpha and long reload, artillery inherently lends itself to fleets. As it scales up in turret size, this only becomes more exacerbated. How many artillery ships do you want? I feel there is generally a good spread of diversity among minmatar ships. Also, please tell me more about the plethora of legitimately amazing small beam ships in small gang/solo. By the way its a list of about two ships, and one of them is a T3 destroyer. It's also because of the incredible speed and agility of the ship, and not the innate awesomeness of beams. Until the recent (and rather massive) damage buff to small beams, they were by and large a complete joke. You do see a lot of confessors using beams, but outside of fleets of retributions (which are obsolete thanks to the confessor) small beams really aren't a thing.

    In general, without discussing numbers specifically, in specific side by side comparisons, we can probably argue theory and opinion all day till we are blue in the face.

    I think I will just finish by saying there seems to be a lot of opinions in this thread on a whole about what people think projectile turrets "should be". If we are still adhering to older design principles I personally feel that projectiles are doing fine. There has simply been a certain degree of power creep in some other weapon systems (most notably hybrids). Not every ship should be able to fill every role. That's why we have so many ships, to hopefully avoid homogenization.
    Lugh Crow-Slave
    #213 - 2015-01-24 02:50:33 UTC
    Theon Severasse wrote:
    Would like to see the optimal range bonus swapped to a falloff bonus to actually make it useful.


    this
    Stitch Kaneland
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #214 - 2015-01-24 04:11:55 UTC
    Tara'Quoya Rax wrote:
    Please add a falloff bonus to the Svipul, or at least replace the optimal bonus with it. Falloff is the defining feature of projectile gunnery and should be the feature getting the bonus. Giving a minnie ship an optimal bonus is like giving an amarr ship a falloff bonus; it's just wrong...


    Because both beams and lasers operate strictly in optimal. So, its not a big deal to give laser boats only optimal bonuses. Projectiles have a/c and artillery. Artillery can benefit greatly with optimal bonuses. My muninn has a 50km optimal with titanium sabot. Tracks the same as scorch pulse lasers, and has 2.5k alpha shots. If you were to ruin that with a fall-off bonus, artillery would have no use (solo). As its alpha would be reduced greatly if it were fighting strictly in fall-off.

    Hybrids fight a lot in optimal too. Yet they get optimal or fall-off bonuses (sometimes both). So, different ships use the same weapon differently, which is good. Keeps things interesting.
    Nevyn Auscent
    Broke Sauce
    #215 - 2015-01-24 09:32:24 UTC
    Stitch Kaneland wrote:

    Because both beams and lasers operate strictly in optimal. So, its not a big deal to give laser boats only optimal bonuses. Projectiles have a/c and artillery. Artillery can benefit greatly with optimal bonuses. My muninn has a 50km optimal with titanium sabot. Tracks the same as scorch pulse lasers, and has 2.5k alpha shots. If you were to ruin that with a fall-off bonus, artillery would have no use (solo). As its alpha would be reduced greatly if it were fighting strictly in fall-off.

    Hybrids fight a lot in optimal too. Yet they get optimal or fall-off bonuses (sometimes both). So, different ships use the same weapon differently, which is good. Keeps things interesting.

    Larger lasers actually have significant fall off ranges, and care about their fall off.
    Wouldn't be game breaking to swap out the +50% optimal for a +30/40% to both Fall off & Optimal on long range ammo, and the inverse for short range ammo.
    Net range would be similar or even longer for most long range ammo's, and slightly shorter for short range ammo's, which would actually provide AC's T1 ammo with important choices, while still keeping consistent across the turrets.
    Ar Yuken
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #216 - 2015-01-24 10:24:57 UTC
    Love the vertical theme.

    However, it looks more like a robot standing (or something that belongs in a transformer movie) instead of a ship.


    Ragori Mitternacht
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #217 - 2015-01-24 12:31:02 UTC
    Tara'Quoya Rax wrote:
    Please add a falloff bonus to the Svipul, or at least replace the optimal bonus with it. Falloff is the defining feature of projectile gunnery and should be the feature getting the bonus. Giving a minnie ship an optimal bonus is like giving an amarr ship a falloff bonus; it's just wrong...

    I also agree that the MWD sig reduction bonus in defensive mode makes no sense and basically gimps that mode.

    As it is right now, I wouldn't invest in a Svipul as a mere Thrasher or a Sabre is alot more cost effective.


    As for the ammo change, it's barely gonna be noticable below larges, unless you can stack up falloff bonuses (another reason why the Svipul should also be falloff based)


    The simplest explanation yet. I base all projectile weapons on the fall off not the optimal because the fall off is the most important for projectile weapons. and I agree beyond a shred of doubt that at it's currents stats the Svipul is worthless as a thresher or a sabre can out preform it. I am not even touching the ammo since I have rarely used the T2 ammo since I find it less effective than faction but then again I don't have maxed out skills to utilize the T2 ammo to it's fullest ability. I have no shame in admitting that since I am relatively new pilot and thus my experience and knowledge is limited.

    So as a rookie pilot sitting here I don't see a point in this ship. Yes the more veteran pilots can make this work possibly but from where I am sitting this ship with it's stats is not worth it. I am not speaking for other pilots just myself as I am still learning others might be able to make it work but I can't.
    Komodo Askold
    Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
    Silent Company
    #218 - 2015-01-24 18:41:13 UTC
    About the range bonus, I'll say again that while having a falloff bonus would be nice for autocannon fits, it really isn't for artilleries. Artys fire slowly, so they need to make every shot count. The Svipul has damage appliaction bonuses that help them towards it, but a fallof bonus wouldn't that much, because on falloff shots become less precise and thus deal less damage. It doesn't matter that much to autocannons because of their high rate of fire and because they already have big fallof values, but it's an important issue for artilleries: you shoot so slowly you need to make sure every shot lands properly, so you can really benefit of their alpha.

    So for those who say replace the optimal range bonus with a falloff bonus, I've got a better alternative: have BOTH bonuses. Perhaps with less numeric values, but have both. That way both weapon choices are properly bonused. Also, T3 are supposed to be about versatility: for me that also means being able to fit both turret variants too.

    Also, I still think artilleries could use some less powergrid usage, just a pinch less. Or, give Minmatar ships more powergrid. It really doesn't make sense having to sacrifice lowslots or rig slots for being able to fit their prefered long-range weapon even with high fitting skills such as Advanced Weapon Upgrades 4.
    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #219 - 2015-01-25 19:03:31 UTC
    so are we still going with this awful optimal bonus instea of falloff?
    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #220 - 2015-01-25 19:05:21 UTC
    Komodo Askold wrote:
    About the range bonus, I'll say again that while having a falloff bonus would be nice for autocannon fits, it really isn't for artilleries. Artys fire slowly, so they need to make every shot count. The Svipul has damage appliaction bonuses that help them towards it, but a fallof bonus wouldn't that much, because on falloff shots become less precise and thus deal less damage. It doesn't matter that much to autocannons because of their high rate of fire and because they already have big fallof values, but it's an important issue for artilleries: you shoot so slowly you need to make sure every shot lands properly, so you can really benefit of their alpha.

    So for those who say replace the optimal range bonus with a falloff bonus, I've got a better alternative: have BOTH bonuses. Perhaps with less numeric values, but have both. That way both weapon choices are properly bonused. Also, T3 are supposed to be about versatility: for me that also means being able to fit both turret variants too.

    Also, I still think artilleries could use some less powergrid usage, just a pinch less. Or, give Minmatar ships more powergrid. It really doesn't make sense having to sacrifice lowslots or rig slots for being able to fit their prefered long-range weapon even with high fitting skills such as Advanced Weapon Upgrades 4.


    your reasoning is completely wonky and wrong, but having generic optimal and falloff bonuses is the best solution for minmatar and gallente ships. I don't even see any need to have them be less than the full 10% per level to both stats.