These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Carnyx] The Jackdaw

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Izmaragd Dawnstar
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#461 - 2015-05-19 21:29:42 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks to those of you who have provided feedback so far.
We're going to try another all-new bonus to replace the tank bonus on the CTD skill: a 15% reduction in missile launcher reload time per level.


While certainly very nice to have, I feel such a bonus falls out of the line compared to the other tactical dessies. Let's do this in order:
- What is the problem of the lasers? They use cap. So, the Confessor gets a bonus on laser cap usage.
- What is the problem of the autocannons? The have crap optimal and shoot in falloff a lot. So, the Svipul has a bonus to optimal.
- What is the problem of hybrids? Well, they don't really have one, but both null and void come with -25% tracking so the Hecate is planned to have a tracking bonus (unless you guys decide to replace it with something else before July, of course Big smile )

Now, what is the problem of missiles and rockets? Is it reload time? While reducing reload time is definitely nice and everyone will take it over the 50HP shield bonus every day, it's not going to make or break stuff, unless we're talking RLMLs, which a dessie can't fit. Now, the missile application (aka "I need at least a web to make rage rockets hit a frigate for something") can be an issue.

So, again, why not an application bonus? Pretty please? Bear
I could also do with a 7.5% shield boost amount, to keep it in line with the hawk.
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#462 - 2015-05-19 21:40:22 UTC
CCP Fozzie, just wanted to chime in to say, I like this new bonus much better :)
Xavier Azabu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#463 - 2015-05-19 22:10:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Xavier Azabu
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks to those of you who have provided feedback so far.
We're going to try another all-new bonus to replace the tank bonus on the CTD skill: a 15% reduction in missile launcher reload time per level.

The flexibility that this bonus provides for in-combat ammo switching should be pretty interesting, without causing an oppressive increase in the best-case power level of the ship. At level 5, missile launchers would reload in 2.5 seconds.

This bonus won't be working correctly in the next SISI build tomorrow, but it will be in an upcoming build for you guys to try out.


YES! I don't know if I was the first to think of this but this should be really cool and should make the ship really adaptable as others have said. It also increases the overall DPS. Great job buffing without breaking, Fozzie. I also think that your reload speed increase is better than the 10% that I thought of... IdeaBlink

Xavier Azabu wrote:
Hi Fozzie. Trust me, that 250hp shield bonus needs to go. Just give the ship about 150-200 more shield ehp. Also please increase the speed a little! And the locking range by 5km.

For the replacement bonus, why not a grab bag for versatility? I'd consider (this) for a unique ship....

  • 10% bonus to Missile Launcher Reload Time per level...

    • ...Players could use rig slots to increase velocity. Then you have a sniping light missile... boat with quick draw timing and a decent tank.



    With this buff I'd just tweak the stats a bit after testing and the Jackdaw should be a lot of fun.

    Altrue wrote:
    [quote=CCP Fozzie]...
    The Jackdaw should've been, for all intent and purposes, a T2 Talwar. That's what people were expecting. If we want a slow and fat light missile ship, we can pick a caracal....


    I've agreed with many of your points in this thread Altrue and I agree with the general idea here but the thing has 6 mids and enough fitting possibilities to make it Talwar-like with an afterburner. Think of how broken a buffed Talwar would be! After a good night's sleep I think the stats will still make for a decent ship.
    Alexis Nightwish
    #464 - 2015-05-19 22:25:04 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey everyone. Thanks to those of you who have provided feedback so far.
    We're going to try another all-new bonus to replace the tank bonus on the CTD skill: a 15% reduction in missile launcher reload time per level.

    The flexibility that this bonus provides for in-combat ammo switching should be pretty interesting, without causing an oppressive increase in the best-case power level of the ship. At level 5, missile launchers would reload in 2.5 seconds.

    This bonus won't be working correctly in the next SISI build tomorrow, but it will be in an upcoming build for you guys to try out.

    So you've gone from a great defensive bonus, to a mediocre defensive bonus, to no bonus at all. You've completely lobotomized any buffer and passive regen fits. *slowclap*

    Combined with its sig radius (easily the highest of the T3Ds, Hecate included, even in defense mode), this thing is going to take all the damage.

    I hope that dual MASBs are enough to make the magic happen, cause if not I'm just going to call this the Jokedaw.

    CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

    EVE Online's "I win!" Button

    Fixing bombs, not the bombers
    Pancocco
    Jerz Meymez Industry
    #465 - 2015-05-19 22:39:09 UTC
    Fozzie. Thanks for listening to the feedback. The change adds depth and a reason for us not to keep autoreload on the missiles for once. Even if it doesnt work out, Im happy to see it being attempted :) Personally I would have liked to see something like reduced sig penalty, but this is suprisingly interesting and engaging too!

    To the rest of you complaining: Theyre taking in feedback, just cause they didnt take in yours specifically doesnt mean its ****.

    Extra Foramen vermis nulla salus
    Great Creator
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #466 - 2015-05-19 22:43:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Great Creator
    Terra Chrall wrote:

    Do you never fight against more than one ship? When you do are they all the same race? If you go in against a mixed gang that had a Wolf, Zealot and a Hawk you might want to use Scourage on the Wolf, Inferno on the Zealot, and EM on the Hawk.

    That said. I am looking this over some more and while a cool, unique, and tactical skill. It adds little power in the scope of your average fight.

    I hope they raise the base shields to a good place to keep the defense in line with the ship's design, knowing that this tactical bonus is cool but still very situational.

    EDIT: Selecting between T2 ammo types quickly is a good use of this bonus. Changing damage types is a little less critical. And takes a lot more player knowledge of enemy ships. Of course if you think a ship is shield fit and find it was in fact armor fit, that extra 7.5 seconds could prove to be precious seconds.

    KB... and - i`m fight 1vsOverview in 90%, when i`m solo, so ... i know what i`m saying.
    if i go against this gang? - okay. but... on which ship?) on THIS new t3d - if THEY (gang i mean) not idiots - u just die cause of zealot and tackle from hawky/wolfy :) or u just warp out :) cause u have no tank., no speed :) or if u have bonuses, HG crystall and blue pill - u just don`t give a **** about damage type. u just tank them amd slowly kill dat guys

    it`s not add everything - trust me, it`s just waste of text and ship bonus.
    Haha - change t2? why - if u fight against destr+(but better cruiser, and it slow as maller, and not oversized ab) size = fury, else - faction. t2 lm prec - waste of cargo. t2 javelin - mb - but rly - if u need javelin rockets on close and slow destr - all goes wrong or u have a interestenig long range rocket setup (but actually it don`t work good too)


    yea yea - seconds >_> it`s just imagination.
    SilentAsTheGrave
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #467 - 2015-05-19 22:58:22 UTC
    Gorski Car wrote:
    Yes that is way better. Good choice fozzie

    (Would have loved a ECM bonus though because I hate people )

    And you wonder why you didn't make it into CSM 10. Straight
    Xavier Azabu
    Half Empty
    xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
    #468 - 2015-05-19 23:11:18 UTC
    SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
    Gorski Car wrote:
    Yes that is way better. Good choice fozzie

    (Would have loved a ECM bonus though because I hate people )

    And you wonder why you didn't make it into CSM 10. Straight


    Do you know who you're talking to?
    Gorski is an extremely talented pilot and theorycrafter. I've only flown with him a few times. He was one of those pilots who knows what to do at every step of the battle. He is far more experienced than many of the people on the CSM (no offense to anyone) at flying the ships. He was also responsible for some input into changes during the last CSM. Sorry to distract but I trust his advice in this thread.

    For all of those whining - give Fozzie some time. He might adjust the tank or sig or speed a bit. Haven't we been through this enough to know that it's not done yet?
    Just remember for all of your criticism that the thing has 6 mids and decent damage and agility.
    Ix Method
    Doomheim
    #469 - 2015-05-19 23:13:30 UTC
    New bonus best bonus, gg.

    Travelling at the speed of love.
    Nikolai Agnon
    Khanid Propulsion Systems
    Local Is Primary
    #470 - 2015-05-19 23:28:39 UTC
    The Jackdaw needs a damage application bonus, not a reload change. Anything with a cap stable tank higher than 20 ehp/s will be immune to the Jackdaw at 19km and 4km/s, especially if it's too slow to be able to slingshot with. This is a fantastic brawler, but this will have almost nonexistant applied damage against targets that are actually moving.

    This bonus heavily favors rockets, while does absolutely nothing for LML's. Please give the Jackdaw an explosion velocity bonus similar to the Corax.

    Nikolai Agnon for CSM XI!

    FacWar | Lowsec | PVE | API
    Soldarius
    Dreddit
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    #471 - 2015-05-19 23:57:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
    Yesterday I had a big long point-by-point post on the bonuses. I decided not to click submit because I knew things were changing rapidly and I wanted to do *things* on sisi. Glad I held off.

    So this new reload time bonus is unusual, unique, interesting, and tactically useful, especially for non-doctrine skirmishing like what you might see in losec or nulsec.

    On the other hand, the Jackdaw has a rather... small... base buffer now. Good thing it has 6 mids to compensate.

    And dat align time in prop mode... lol holy crap.

    edit: no application bonuses are required on small missiles. They apply perfectly to almost everything if you just put some SP into the appropriate skills.

    http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
    Jenshae Chiroptera
    #472 - 2015-05-20 00:42:32 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Role Bonus:
    50% bonus to Rocket and Light Missile damage
    95% reduction in Scan Probe Launcher CPU requirements

    Additional bonuses :
    Defense Mode:
    33.3% bonus to all shield resistances while Defense Mode is active
    Firstly, (I say this after Provi just beat NC.'s Tempest Fleet Issues with Nagas and Tornados) I do not like destroyers and Tier 3 battle cruisers.
    - Cruisers are good enough for killing frigates.
    - Standard battle cruisers are good enough for killing cruisers.

    Destroyers and Tier 3s have way too much power for too little skill and ISK.

    Tech 3 cruisers ... you finally saw they are over powered and nerf'ed them a little.

    Now ... you are making destroyers with 50%, let me repeat FIFTY percent damage bonus before mods on hulls that are already over powered AND they get 33.3% shield resists ... wait ... a Tengu gets 20% with subsystem skill to FIVE but a T3 destroyer can have 13% over and above a T3 cruiser by default?!

    What substances are your team taking? Shocked

    CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

    Not even once

    EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
    Caleb Seremshur
    Commando Guri
    Guristas Pirates
    #473 - 2015-05-20 01:25:01 UTC
    Fourteen Maken wrote:
    Caleb Seremshur wrote:


    ASBs need a nerf as opposed to regular boosters needing a buff. At the module level. Not at the suspiciously specific ship level.


    "Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate" Roll



    I take it you feel that ASBs are fine as-is? Care to explain why? Try to reference more than just their reload time (I'm sure I don't need to go there).
    Caleb Seremshur
    Commando Guri
    Guristas Pirates
    #474 - 2015-05-20 01:27:25 UTC
    SilentAsTheGrave wrote:
    Gorski Car wrote:
    Yes that is way better. Good choice fozzie

    (Would have loved a ECM bonus though because I hate people )

    And you wonder why you didn't make it into CSM 10. Straight


    As "the 4chan candidate" he had a hard enough time getting elected in the first place. He was what, 14th or 15th in line to the throne and only got there because so many people quit csm9?
    Arthur Aihaken
    CODE.d
    #475 - 2015-05-20 01:30:27 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    The flexibility that this bonus provides for in-combat ammo switching should be pretty interesting, without causing an oppressive increase in the best-case power level of the ship. At level 5, missile launchers would reload in 2.5 seconds.

    Great! Now can we get this for the Barghest as well...?

    I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
    Aven Heleneto
    Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
    Arataka Research Consortium
    #476 - 2015-05-20 01:59:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Aven Heleneto
    Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
    Now ... you are making destroyers with 50%, let me repeat FIFTY percent damage bonus before mods on hulls that are already over powered AND they get 33.3% shield resists ... wait ... a Tengu gets 20% with subsystem skill to FIVE but a T3 destroyer can have 13% over and above a T3 cruiser by default?!

    strategic cruisers get all five of their subsystem bonuses all the time, the resist bonuses from defensive mode on tactical destroyers preclude the speed/inertia bonus from speed mode or the range of sharpshooter mode, it's a completely different style of play.

    and the 50% damage role bonus the class has was so they could remove a few hardpoints and have the same amount of damage as the original version, and then nerf the powergrid to make oversized afterburner fits require some compromise without making long range fits impractical.
    Caleb Seremshur
    Commando Guri
    Guristas Pirates
    #477 - 2015-05-20 02:04:57 UTC
    This all makes me wonder where t3s are going. 5 subsystems with 3 modes each?
    Stunt Flores
    Anime Masters
    #478 - 2015-05-20 02:07:17 UTC
    Kind of a lame bonus. I mean its cool for fleet situations swapping ammo types I guess but the other t3ds dont get that kind of bonus pure damage.
    Aven Heleneto
    Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
    Arataka Research Consortium
    #479 - 2015-05-20 02:08:21 UTC
    Caleb Seremshur wrote:
    This all makes me wonder where t3s are going. 5 subsystems with 3 modes each?

    each set independently for 75 different ways to fly it?
    Jenshae Chiroptera
    #480 - 2015-05-20 02:21:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
    Aven Heleneto wrote:
    Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
    Now ... you are making destroyers with 50%, let me repeat FIFTY percent damage bonus before mods ...
    strategic cruisers get all five of their subsystem bonuses all the time, ...
    Role + mode.
    Not mode vs mode.

    Mini-max these T3 destroyers into specific roles and it won't be long until a fleet of them is rolling out with just tackle and logi.

    These ships also exacerbate power creep, so new players will look at how far they have to go and possibly quit. This is already a huge problem before new ships are added.

    CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

    Not even once

    EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.