These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Assault Frigates Will Blot Out the Sun...

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2011-12-24 23:53:28 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Liam Mirren wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
What's needed is an additional mechanism to the tracking formula that gradually decreases tracking after a certain distance.


That's called falloff.


Falloff has no effect on tracking.


No but they are calculated in the same formula giving almost the same thing as if it decreased tracking instead.
Kn1v3s 999
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2011-12-25 03:00:48 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Kn1v3s 999 wrote:
I like the mwd bonus but for ceptors:
ok, they will be used as pure tackler (as someone can say their role) but that s a very limited niche. Outside of that role they will be totally obsolete.


this is the first time i've heard that fleet/gang tackling is a limited niche Straight



Because you should have some margin to adapt any ship for a different kind of engangment, if not, there will be only 1 standrad fit for every ship and every ship will suit it' s role and only that, all of this make less variability and more boringness.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#63 - 2011-12-25 03:13:39 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Liam Mirren wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
What's needed is an additional mechanism to the tracking formula that gradually decreases tracking after a certain distance.


That's called falloff.


Falloff has no effect on tracking.


No but they are calculated in the same formula giving almost the same thing as if it decreased tracking instead.


I think its important to look at the tracking formula like this:

tracking_miss_chance = ( angular_velocity / turret_tracking * sig_resolution / sig_radius ) ^ 2
range_miss_chance = ( max(0, range_to_target - optimal) / falloff ) ^ 2

overall_hit_chance = 0.5^(tracking_miss_chance + distance_miss_chance).

There are some things to note about this formula:
- The base is less than zero - thus bigger numbers in the exponent result in smaller chances to hit.
- Both exponent terms are squared, and thus cannot be less than zero. The range is [0, 1]
- If tracking_miss_chance goes to zero (straight approach), you can still miss from distance.
- If the range is below optimal, you can still miss from tracking.
- tracking_miss_chance and distance_miss_chance are added. According to the rules of exponents, we could easily rewrite it like so...

0.5 ^ tracking_miss_chance * 0.5 ^ distance_miss_chance

This makes it plain that we do in fact have to independentchances to miss - one for tracking, one for distance.

Now, as to the suggestion of adding a "falloff" to turret tracking... I'm not really a fan. It seems like - conceptually - if you can move your guns at 0.1 rad/sec and you're accurate out to 5000 meters, that's good enough. There's no reason that at range I'd expect my guns to suddenly be able to move slower. Besides, even if projectiles weren't causing the problem everyone is complaining about, lasers would... its just a matter of being able to hit at range.

Basically, the core problem is that MWDing frigs have a battlecruiser sized sig radius and a frigate tank... and since the nano nerf you don't actually get a damage reduction from MWDing (unless you're using a faction/deadspace MWD).

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Elindreal
Planetary Interactors
#64 - 2011-12-25 15:47:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Elindreal
*nevermind*

it all looks interesting
i'm happy that the harpy gets the resist bonus now
it was disappointing that the t1 merlin got a shield bonus while the t2 af's didn't (active boost hawk doesn't count!)
Liam Mirren
#65 - 2011-12-25 15:49:17 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Basically, the core problem is that MWDing frigs have a battlecruiser sized sig radius and a frigate tank... and since the nano nerf you don't actually get a damage reduction from MWDing (unless you're using a faction/deadspace MWD).


Indeed, perhaps it's time for CCP to have a good look at how MWDs work. When they changed them (faction versions losing speed advantage) they instead gave them a sig radius bonus showing that they understood the new problem. I wonder what kind of effect dropping MWD sig bloom (by like 50%) would have on pvp scenarios, there's ofcourse the obvious stuff but I'm sure there'll be some emergent new strategies derived from it.

Smaller base sig bloom on MWD would make for entirely different fits and would make "small ship vs large one" fights more interesting. And if you THEN factor in the proposed AF Sig role bonus it starts to make a whole lot more sense.

Just a brain fart ofcourse.

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#66 - 2011-12-25 16:44:02 UTC
Liam Mirren wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Basically, the core problem is that MWDing frigs have a battlecruiser sized sig radius and a frigate tank... and since the nano nerf you don't actually get a damage reduction from MWDing (unless you're using a faction/deadspace MWD).


Indeed, perhaps it's time for CCP to have a good look at how MWDs work. When they changed them (faction versions losing speed advantage) they instead gave them a sig radius bonus showing that they understood the new problem. I wonder what kind of effect dropping MWD sig bloom (by like 50%) would have on pvp scenarios, there's ofcourse the obvious stuff but I'm sure there'll be some emergent new strategies derived from it.

Smaller base sig bloom on MWD would make for entirely different fits and would make "small ship vs large one" fights more interesting. And if you THEN factor in the proposed AF Sig role bonus it starts to make a whole lot more sense.

Just a brain fart ofcourse.


I think the problem is largely unique to frigates given their natural lack of tank. I'd be in favor of doing that with frigate MWDs.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#67 - 2011-12-25 18:31:35 UTC
An skilled interceptor pilot can approach at an angle and get underneath a target's guns. AF have a tank and will be harder to hit soon as well. That leaves EAF and tier one frigates. The latter needs an extensive remodel - but let's face it - they're super cheap. Pulse into range and turn the MWD off. If you don't make it - you're not out that much. EAF - expect something similar in the works I guess.

I see future modules as having an affect on frigate combat. Take utility high slots for example. Nuets kill frigates faster then anything else. There's usually very little competing for those high slots. Cloaks? Salvagers? Missiles? Nope. If you can fit a nuet it's going on.

When they rolled out overheating they talked about future 'heat sinks' to keep modules overheated longer. Keeping a slot blank has a slightly positive effect. But those promised modules never came out. My point is if you had more choices for the utiltiy highs you'd force people to really think about fitting those nuets. It would give frigates a fighting chance.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#68 - 2011-12-25 18:52:37 UTC
This makes me happy, since I have assault frigates trained for amarr only as a means of getting to ARMOR HACs. Now I will actually have a use for these skills.

The vengeance is gonna be great and the retribution will no longer be crippled by its single midslot design. Though I wish they added a low slot for the vengeance rather than a high slot. Though the 5% rof increase will make rockets actually worth using on the vengeance.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#69 - 2011-12-25 18:59:50 UTC
It is the Chaos server, internal playground, what is on there means diddly other than the fact that CCP has started floating some balloons (read: "lol" at people thinking that is what will come to pass)

Extra slot + extra bonus + MWD role bonus = OP'ness incarnate. They'd not only make fielding any T1 frigate/destroyer suicidal but obsolete all pirate/navy frigs as well as a good chunk of the T1 cruisers ..

If they insist on restricting them in the tank*yawn*spank paradigm they will have to eliminate tiers and/or rebalance each and every other frigate, destroyer/dictor and cruiser in game as there is precious little room for adding "oomph" to AF's which are right smack in the middle of a very crowded part of the balance tables.
Dorian Tormak
RBON United
#70 - 2011-12-25 20:02:30 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Extra slot + extra bonus + MWD role bonus = OP'ness incarnate. They'd not only make fielding any T1 frigate/destroyer suicidal but obsolete all pirate/navy frigs as well as a good chunk of the T1 cruisers.

How would Assault Ships being O. P. effect Tech I Frigates in any way, except for the part where they can't fight Assault Ships (which they can't really do right now anyway unless the pilot's a nablet)?

As well, the pirate frigates and navy frigates hardly stand a chance against a well-flown Assault Ship in a straight up 1v1 scenario as it is now, which is because their main abilities are speed/range (which many many pilots do not utilise) and the ability to engage/disengage at will (which again many people forget about). (Read: Rail Comet, Devil, Hookbill, Dramiel, Slicer, ETC.) Even if these changes come out you'll see Assault Ships dying to some of these because of things like A) Range and 2) Tracking / lack of mid-slots.

Hirana Yoshida wrote:
If they insist on restricting them in the tank*yawn*spank paradigm they will have to eliminate tiers and/or rebalance each and every other frigate, destroyer/dictor and cruiser in game as there is precious little room for adding "oomph" to AF's which are right smack in the middle of a very crowded part of the balance tables.

What the **** are you talking about

Holy Satanic Christ! This is a Goddamn Signature!
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#71 - 2011-12-25 20:15:19 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
It is the Chaos server, internal playground, what is on there means diddly other than the fact that CCP has started floating some balloons (read: "lol" at people thinking that is what will come to pass)

Extra slot + extra bonus + MWD role bonus = OP'ness incarnate. They'd not only make fielding any T1 frigate/destroyer suicidal but obsolete all pirate/navy frigs as well as a good chunk of the T1 cruisers ..

If they insist on restricting them in the tank*yawn*spank paradigm they will have to eliminate tiers and/or rebalance each and every other frigate, destroyer/dictor and cruiser in game as there is precious little room for adding "oomph" to AF's which are right smack in the middle of a very crowded part of the balance tables.


I love how you simply state its opness incarnate with absolutely no justification or reasoning.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#72 - 2011-12-25 20:39:00 UTC
On a different note....

The retribution is a bit lackluster as it lacks a double damage bonus similar to the Wolf, Jaguar, and now the Enyo. The Ishkur and Harpy can get good DPS as blaster boats. The Hawk and Vengeance are all about the tank baby.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#73 - 2011-12-25 20:40:46 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:

Extra slot + extra bonus + MWD role bonus = OP'ness incarnate. They'd not only make fielding any T1 frigate/destroyer suicidal but obsolete all pirate/navy frigs as well as a good chunk of the T1 cruisers ..


For years I've heard, "AF are worthless. T1 Cruisers can do the job for cheaper." Now that claim is challenged and holy **** we're overpowered.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2011-12-25 20:55:53 UTC
By the way, speaking about the 4th bonus. The Vengeance (and Sacrilege) have that odd +5% cap regen per level bonus. Khanid ships tend to work better with a passive tank and even with an active tank the bonus hardly makes a difference.

An agility bonus would be nice for the typical combat style of Khanid ships. Both on the initial approach and later on when opponents try to disengage agility is fairly important.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#75 - 2011-12-25 20:56:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Hirana Yoshida
Dorian Tormak wrote:
How would Assault Ships being O. P. effect Tech I Frigates in any way, except for the part where they can't fight Assault Ships (which they can't really do right now anyway unless the pilot's a nablet)?

They can, not solo in most cases (Rifter is exception), but duo-ing AF's is very easy. Adding more firepower, utility and tank to the AF's however would push that into "blob of T1 needed" at which point it will cease to exist because (almost) no one willingly engages blobs
Dorian Tormak wrote:
What the **** are you talking about

I take it you are not a light hull aficionado? The balance in the light class is extremely delicate, mainly due to the minute deviations in slots/characteristics from "worst" to "best", and AF's are currently located at the top of the T2 frigate pile when it comes to tank/spank .. so high on top that they already overlap the low tier cruisers .. now add slot + bonuses on top and see where you end up.
The primary reason for ever choosing a cruiser over an AF becomes "do I need/want a medium neut" if you give them any sort of "worthwhile" tank/spank boost .. that is what I am talking about.

Liang Nuren wrote:
I love how you simply state its opness incarnate with absolutely no justification or reasoning.

-Liang

See above.

But to elaborate;
Halving sig bloom when using MWD will make most high calibre medium guns useless against them as tracking becomes all important .. speed tanking will in essence rear its ugly head in Eve once more.
Adding slots universally moves them up through the cruiser line so that they are roughly on-par with the mid-high tier cruisers (slotwise). In conjunction with more tank/spank you are effectively creating cruiser level dps platforms with immense tanking potential (especially horrid example is suggested extra low for Wolf).

Worst of all: Following the tank/spank paradigm while not addressing each hull individually does sod all for the balance within the class, we will still mainly see Wolves/Jaguars/Ishkurs with the occasional guest appearance of some price-dumped "other" .. difference will be that the few top tier cruiser that still venture out will be replaced with AF's that are now equal with the rest of space being taken by the omni-present tier2 BCs.

Tank/Spank won't work!
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
For years I've heard, "AF are worthless. T1 Cruisers can do the job for cheaper." Now that claim is challenged and holy **** we're overpowered.

Most cases that is true, they are cheaper, generally last a bit a longer (depends) but otherwise even'ish. But what if those changes made it to live, would you ever choose a Rupture over a Wolf? Or a lol-Omen over a Retribution?
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#76 - 2011-12-25 21:01:30 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
I was drinking alot of Nog and Cider last night. Knocked me right out... (I forgot about this thread) Note: I have no issue with the most proposed changes. I'm fine with assault frigates now or with these preliminary changes. With the exception of the "role bonus".


Warning! Rant below. You should skip this:
(Some classes of ships are more useful than others and some ships are terrible compared with others. I'm fine with that, but the balance crowd. The nerds who got beat up in high school. The ugly ones. The everything must be equal, but then contradict themselves. By saying they want "variety", which would inherently draw contrast. Cannot except certain anything being better than anything else or else it has no place. We will continue to go around in a circle. Until these people either leave the game or start playing it and STFU.)


With CCP's proposed preliminary changes. This is how I'd rank these ships @ the moment (I had to put away my bias towards the Wolf for this one). The Enyo and Harpy hype crowd won't like this either, but meh! Deal with it!

I'll only list 3 ships for now, because it's hard to figure out all probably niche and most probably optimum set-ups in such a short time. Since I've experimented with so many ships cruiser and below. Having encountered and having to compensate with alot of their weaknesses for such along time. This often takes weeks to contemplate and then to put them into practice. However so many ships already do what assault ships will be able to if these changes were implemented by CCP.

(1) Ishkur - This is still the most versatile and has comparable damage to the Enyo even after the changes. Be it rail-gun or blaster. There are so many possible set-ups for this ship. That it's hard to see it being supplanted. I always tend to factor in the Ishkurs resistance to all forms of electronic warfare and to a lesser extent neutraliser.

(2) Vengeance and Retribution are here for sure. Each able to counter each other effectively. However the Retribution is superior @ skirmishing. The Vengeance is superior @ anal and vaginal warfare. The Retribution can permanently skirmish with micro-warp drive, warp disruptor and pulse lasers active in certain set-ups. Has no weakness close range and is almost as resistant to neutraliser as the Vengeance. Comparing the Wolf with the Vengeance. Sustained-focused damage, superior effective hit-points, resistant to electronic warfare (bar ecm) and neutralisers. Can permanently run a single armour repair with certain set-ups and with these changes will be able to dual armour repair and maintain substantial damage output. Using it's utility high slot for a neutraliser that can act as a stasis webifier and disable a opponents movement. Either with a dual armour repair set-up or with a armour plated set-up. Why the Vengeance does not supplant the Ishkur is because of ECM drones and the Ishkur can also mount a massive active defence. While doing tremendous damage.


I have not placed the Hawk yet, but I'm sure most know of the varied ways of being lame with this frigate (including insane tank and multi-webs or TD'ing). The Enyo only becomes superior to the Wolf, with a rail-gun setup. The Jaguar has been supplanted. In fact all the Minmatar frigates and the Harpy are @ the bottom in terms of frigate versus frigate engagements.

Assault frigates have a role. Damage things. They do it better than all other frigates. Same with Heavy assault cruisers who also do not have a role bonus. However, they damage things... A Abaddon damages things and so does a Drake. Damaging things is a very important role, in my opinion...


-proxyyyy
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#77 - 2011-12-25 21:10:06 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:

Liang Nuren wrote:
I love how you simply state its opness incarnate with absolutely no justification or reasoning.

-Liang

See above.

But to elaborate;
Halving sig bloom when using MWD will make most high calibre medium guns useless against them as tracking becomes all important .. speed tanking will in essence rear its ugly head in Eve once more.
Adding slots universally moves them up through the cruiser line so that they are roughly on-par with the mid-high tier cruisers (slotwise). In conjunction with more tank/spank you are effectively creating cruiser level dps platforms with immense tanking potential (especially horrid example is suggested extra low for Wolf).

Worst of all: Following the tank/spank paradigm while not addressing each hull individually does sod all for the balance within the class, we will still mainly see Wolves/Jaguars/Ishkurs with the occasional guest appearance of some price-dumped "other" .. difference will be that the few top tier cruiser that still venture out will be replaced with AF's that are now equal with the rest of space being taken by the omni-present tier2 BCs.

Tank/Spank won't work!


A few comments:
- You seem to be complaining about inter-frigate balance and then immediately start talking about how AFs will have some semblance of a defense against medium guns. -_-
- You say that speed tanking will rear its "ugly" head in Eve again, yet you seem to think that's a bad thing. IMO its a good thing on the frigate level and back in the nano era even the most ardent of nerf-nano haters thought speed tanking frigates was just peachy fine.
- AFs will be nowhere near cruiser level DPS and are furthermore not using cruiser modules. We won't be seeing 350-400 DPS at 30km out of AFs, and nor will we be seeing 800 DPS at 4km. Saying that they will be is just flat ignorance or willful deception.
- Post boost, I'd put my Harpy up against any Jag. Bring your dual MSE Jag and I will face **** it.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#78 - 2011-12-25 21:11:59 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:

Most cases that is true, they are cheaper, generally last a bit a longer (depends) but otherwise even'ish. But what if those changes made it to live, would you ever choose a Rupture over a Wolf? Or a lol-Omen over a Retribution?


Please show me this wolf fit with 400 DPS, 40k EHP, Web, Scram, and dual neuts.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#79 - 2011-12-25 21:21:14 UTC
Honestly. Some pilots ingame like to hype certain ships they believe to be underestimated to such a absurd extent. I'm guilty of doing this alot! However, when ask for a honest opinion for the sake of growth as a pilot or to help another pilot and because I'm not complelty delusional. I'm able to except some things being better than others. With the proposed changes. The Eyno will not supplant the Ishkur. It's not superior to the Wolf when using blaster. However, it is better when using rail-gun. The Enyo still has many weaknesses. Something the better assault frigates do not have. While they have better tank to gank ratio. Also, to get the most out of the Enyo in terms of damage. You have to sacrifice tank and pay a whole lot more in terms of isk.


Enyo 360dps

Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Light Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
[Empty High slot]

Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I

Damage Control II
Small Armor Repairer II
Adaptive Nano Plating II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Small Hybrid Collision Accelerator I


Hobgoblin II x1


Enyo 236dps

125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
[Empty High slot]

Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I

Adaptive Nano Plating II
Damage Control II
Small Armor Repairer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Small Hybrid Collision Accelerator I


Hobgoblin II x1


Enyo 250dps

125mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
[Empty High slot]

Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator

Adaptive Nano Plating II
Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Small Hybrid Burst Aerator II
Small Algid Hybrid Administrations Unit I


Hobgoblin II x1
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#80 - 2011-12-25 21:31:53 UTC
m0cking bird wrote:
Fits


I plugged one of the rail fits in and and your DPS reflects the current bonuses. The Enyo is having it's damage bonus per level go from 5% to 10%. To get the equivalent DPS you need to plug in the weapon type and the MFS quantity into a daredevil. The last 125mm fit, for example, would get 290 DPS, not 250....