Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I like the overall direction, but am concerned about some of the specifics.

(1) Bombardment ships.

If I understand correctly, you are defining "Bombardment" ships based on their use of missiles. This is a bad idea.

First, missiles are not a role, they are a weapons system; while choice of weapons influences how a ship is used, it does not dictate a ship's general role. We have missile-using brawlers (i.e. Vengeance) and missile-using snipers (Cerberus). Their role is defined by their slot layout and bonuses, not so much by the fact that they use missiles. That certain platforms are not well-suited for certain roles (missile-based snipers) is a different matter.

Second, not all factions should have missile ships. Missiles are a Caldari specialty, and are one of the things that sets Caldari apart from other factions and makes them unique, much as lasers do for Amarr and artillery does for the Minmatar. Similarly, Rockets and HAMs (but not long-range missiles) are the Khanid specialty. It makes no sense to give other factions a line of ships based around missiles when we already have a faction that specializes heavily in missile use. It would be akin to giving the Caldari a laser-based line of ships. So building a role around missiles seems rather odd.

Third, extending from the second point above, by defining a "role" of ships based around missiles, you risk becoming entangled in pointless symmetry, where each faction gets a missile-using "bombardment" ship in each class regardless of negative effects, solely to ensure that each faction has its own bombardment ship.

Rather, it may make more sense to ask what a particular ship or tier of ships should do, and then work around that. In some cases it may not make much sense for all factions to have a particular ship pseudo-role. For example, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to give the Amarr a drone-based battleship like the Dominix, or give the Minmatar an e-war battleship like the

(2) Defining roles.

Please do not forget about the different racial styles, or try to homogenize ships based on role across factions.

(3) Piecemeal balancing.

As has been pointed out in previous posts, it may make more sense to balance all the frigates at once, rather than balance individual ships. Changes to one frigate will effect all other frigates. And there is no point in changing a handful of frigates, only to have to come back and rebalance them a month or two later because changes to other frigates have created a new balance issue. I don't think anyone will complain about having to wait for a month or two, or more, for a full frigate rebalance that is properly tested.

I think that drone ships should also fall under the bombardment role, as they and missile users have delayed damage.

Amarr & Gallante bombardment -> Drones

Caldari & Minmitar bombardment -> Missiles

The problem with that setup is getting into blaster range with an afterburner... If it's got enough pg to dual-prop then it'd be awesome. And all frigates die in a fire to neuts so there's nothing unusual there Certainly the improved agility and cap numbers make it work a lot better than now.

As for the discussion on the bombardment role, I believe that missile's time of flight is the restricting factor. Artillery definitely fits the description of 'bombardment', but they're trying to differentiate between instant damage and having to wait for the missiles to get there. Having said that, I'd love to know just how fast the missiles can be made to travel, in terms of server restrictions; perhaps this delay can be reduced, at least.

My view is that long range weapons, for sniping etc, are bombardment regardless if they're missiles or rails, arty etc.

Bombardment , I think it is not weapon type option but a style of combat:
Static or near Static, and powerful.
A bombardement frigate could perharps fit large weapons like a stealth bomber but without cloacking.
It could have a siege option like a Dreadnought...

I don't like role boni, not on T1 ships at least and especially not on T1 frigs which should be versatile rather than specialized. Moreover, if you need to give extrem boni (10% armor rep, mwd sig reduction, cap use) then the modules in question should be looked at. (Same with 60MW tormentor, it's the modules not the ship)

Below I've tried to rework the T1 frigs. I've listed slots, boni and some design philosophy for each. I hope this can help you redesigning them all.

Amarr

TORMENTOR (Combat, minipoc)
As proposed apart from module changes needed.

PUNISHER (Combat, minibaddon)
As proposed but bigger cap with similar peak recharge. = Minibaddon

CRUCIFIER (E-war, mini arbi)

• 5% to TD, 10% drone HP, DMG
• 2H, 4M, 3L, 2turrets, 2launchers
• 15 bandwith, 30 bay
• better stats but subpar compared to combat frigs

EXECUTIONER (Attack, minigeddon)

• 10% cap use, 5% ROF
• 3H, 2M, 5L, 3 turrets
• 5 bandwidth, 5 bay

MAGNATE (Probe)
+1 mid

INQUISITOR (Attack)

• 5% rocket ROF, 10% EM missile damage
• 3H,3M,4L, 3launchers
• Good armor and good speed.

Caldari

MERLIN (Combat)

• 5% kinetic missile and hybrid DMG, 5% shield resists
• 3launchers, 3turrets
• versatile Merlin is versatile

HERON (Probe)
+1 low

GRIFFIN (E-war)
2H,5M, 2L, 2launchers

KESTREL (Combat)

• 10% kinetic missile dmg, 10% missile velocity
• 4H, 3M, 3L, 4launchers
• It shouldn't have great speed

CONDOR (Attack)

• 5% missile ROF, 10% missile explosion radius (or explosion speed)
• 3H,4M, 3L, 3launchers
• Fast

BANTAM (Attack)

• 10% optimal, 5% hybrid damage
• 3H, 4M, 3L, 3turrets
• More rail sniper than anything else

Gallente

ATRON (Attack)

• 5% hybrid damage, 5%MWD cap
• 3H, 4M, 3L, 3turrets
• mid heavy to tackle

IMICUS (Probe)
+1 low

INCURSUS (Attack)

• 10% falloff and 7.5% tracking
• 4H, 3M, 3L, 4turrets
• 5 bandwidth, 5bay

MAULUS (E-war)

• 5%RSD, 10% (or more) scan resolution
• 2H,4M,3L, 2turrets

NAVITAS (Combat, minimyrm)

• 10%drone DMG, HP, 7.5% Armor rep amount from local AND remote reppers
• 2H, 4M, 4L, 2turrets
• 20 bandwidth, 20 bay

TRISTAN (Combat)

• 5% hybrid damage and therm missile, 15% hull hp (dunno really)
• 4H, 3M, 3L, 3launchers, 3turrets
• 5 bandwidth, 5 bay

Minmatar

BREACHER (Combat)

• 7.5% shield boosting AND being remote shieldboosted, 10% explosive missiles dmg
• 4H, 4M, 2L, 3launchers, 2turrets

BURST (Attack)

• 10% falloff, 10% optimal
• 4H,2M, 4L, 4turrets
• armor arty aka minimuninn

PROBE (Probe)
+1 mid

RIFTER (Combat)
Rifter be Rifter

SLASHER (Attack, miniphoon)

• 5% ROF proj, 5% ROF missile
• 4H, 3M, 3L, 3turrets, 3launchers
• 5 bandwidth, 5 bay

VIGIL (E-war)

• 5% TP, 5%velocity
• 2H, 5M, 2L, 2turrets, 1launcher

The general philosophy is that combat frigs are versatile and reasonable to fit. Attack frigs are easy to fit if you sacrifice a slot to fitting mods, very hard to fit for all slot gank and impossible to fit for tanking. Also, the general differences between the races (hull, armor, shield, cap, speed, sensors, ...) should still hold.

Moreover the lack of utiity highs in most new ships translates into an extra mid or low slot. This might be too strong. In that case, I'ld favour attack frigs with only 3highs having 9slots total.

After heaving read the OP and all 11 pages I really get a very uncomfortabe feeling in my stomach.

I highly aprechiate the whole "tiericide-" and rebalancing-efforts that were anounced and brought to us at Fanfest and in the corresponding devblog.
In fact, they are long overdue. But the more I read and think about it the more concerned I get.

Concerned about the actual timeplan, the current approach and the manpower thrown at this huge and without any doubt highly critical project.

Without having any doubt about Ytterbiums talents and best intentions I think the manpower CCP devoted to this project is inadequate. I think it makes absolutely no sense to "balance" a tiny fraction of the current Figate lineup at a time, then approaching the next batch of them and so on. They all have to be in a well defined and balanced level to each other within one Faction and compared to their opponents. Doing that in discrete little batches is utter nonsens and will multiply the needed effort and time considering the later inevitably necessary rebalancing and reiterations after getting each new batch online.
The only way to go is to do them all at once and then release them. They may be done in batches ofc for SiSi, but let them all be done, evaluated and tested there and once ready release them in one step on TQ.

The more I read about the proposed Roles of the new shipline the more I get the impression that this will not only lead to much more restrictions in the fits that will be feasible and possible but also towards a tendency to make all the Factions similar. Eve isn´t about making everything the same. It never was, and it never should be!!
Eve is about differences, about giving each pilot the tools at hand to counter something with creativity, skill and knowledge. I as Gallente don´t want to have a full line of Missileboats, or Bombardment-ships how you might call them. Give Gallente instead of this Bombardment-thingy for example a(n) (additional) doneboat, or a second brawler or whatever fits the lore and the bill. No need to make everything the same and thus taking away much of EVE´s flavour.
If Lubomir thinks missileboats are great - OK! Then he´ll train for Caldari vessels and sooner or later fly them. It deserves dedication, time and patience. THAT is what EVE IS about!

The up till now described roles seem much to artificial for my taste. That all sounds like a total overhaul for the complete combat system! That is absolute overkill. Or maybe just a communications problem.
The roles in Eve´s combat environment are allready defined by the pilots & FC´s out there on the battlefields of TQ. The Ship-rebalancing has to take existing roles into consideration, not define new ones that might look nice on paper but don´t exist out there on TQ.
For example I don´t see a real Bombardment-role for Frigates at all. Let´s be honest, in an fleet engagement this role does not exist, even in small gang pvp a frig gets blown away by snipers (think cruisers, hacs) - if it sticks to that what bombardment role implies: low mobility, low tank, some long range dps - or simply blown up by it´s highly mobile brethren. To be of some effectiveness it has to get close and personal, under the tracking of it´s opponents or stay faaar out of gunrange like the reworked ewar-frigs might do.

I think a huge pile of work is to do before the devs even can begin to really lay hands on the actual ships as this whole role-concept seems not thought to the end.

TL;DR:
1. Balancing small subsets of the frigs makes no sense. Ballance them all, start with the really broken ones, let these iterations be tested on SiSi and release the whole family once finished. Even if that means no reworked frigs for Inferno release:(

2. Reconsider the presented Role-concept. Roles have to be defined according to the needs out there on the battlefields of TQ not on nice sounding but nonsignificant theorycrafting.

3. Roles should define useful bonii but not squeeze ships into cookiecutter fits (e.g 10% rep bonus for incursus while loosing fallof bonus)

4. Preserve the uniqueness of the different factions! Making everything the same will ruin eve on the long run.

I hope the feedback in this thread stays numerous and focused because eve is in the unique situation to have a playerbase of exceptional knowledge and dedication to their beloved game - and CCP hopefully the consequence to stick to the things that were learnt and promised after the INCARNA-desaster.
I have absolutely no doubt that this rebalancing effort has the potential to fill the game with new live for years, but also to create an uproar that makes the Jita protests of last summer feel like a mild breeze compared to that - if done wrong. Even more so after the promises of the leadership after this fiasco.

I´m sure we all are eagerly awaiting this rebalancing to make many ships that are never flown enjoyable and fun to fight, win and die in!
But in gods name, please do it right!

kind regards
Lubo

+1
I totally agree with this.

This the first step towards Abbadonification of the Amarr resist hulls per chance? \o/ (can't wait for the Maller to be unbricked!)

Why opt for diminutive capacitor with fast recharge rather than the larger pool as seen on the Slicer? 300 base is a whopping 30% lower than current and I fear no amount of recharge will be able to compensate for that considering frigate fights rarely last more 30-40s to begin with .. the capacitor profile is one of the reasons why the Slicer is so effective .. just sayin'

On the others:
Tormentor is included as an example I take it as it is the only non-tier3?
Why range on the Merlin? Does that mean the Kestrel will be the brawler (ie. buffed mobility)?
Repairer bonus on a frigate .. :notsureifserious: .. can only mean you are looking at revising the buffer/active tank paradigms right? *wink*wink*nudge*nudge*

If you have to delay the feature so be it.

But seriously do this right or not at all..

(Doing a part of the frig lineup at a time is stupid and will create a massive imbalance until the rest is changed)

Some sensible prioritisation with regard to these changes would of gone a long way to making what's been inferred so far acceptable over getting all the frigates done at the same time.

Some reasoning that made sense in reference to the ship's Ytterbium has chosen to start with would of helped, seeing a much needed rebalancing of frigates started with those that don't need much doing to them as yet and only one faction's mining frigate rebalanced as a combat vessel is just a bit half arsed tbh.

Either devote the resources required to do it properly or at least prioritise which frigates to iterate on first.. So start with the mining frigate changes and the release of the ORE frigate, then give us the new improved tier 1 combat's (atron, slasher, etc.), work through them properly.

P.s. Guard has a present for you from me.. I even offered him multiple beer's in payment, but he said he'd happily do it for free Ytterbium