These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ship Balancing: Intermediate Classes (DD and BC)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Saul Elsyn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-07-20 19:49:54 UTC
Re-Balancing: Suggestions and Roles
Destroyers and Battlecruisers: The Intermediate Classes

I must applaud the decision to make the destroyers and battlecruisers an incremental step on the skill training tree with racial versions of the skill (though I won’t like possibly having to retrain for the skills). I’ll be speaking in generalities since I’m no expert in balancing.

Battlecruisers:

The demise of tiers means that each ship design requires a specific role now instead of one being incrementally better than the last. The new ‘Tier 3’ Battlecruisers are an excellent example of a ship designed with a specific role in mind… the synergy of large size battleship guns on a thin cruiser hull had actually been one of the major concept behind the development of actual Battlecruisers in naval warfare. I mean the British Battlecruiser HMS Hood is a classic example of the idea of a fast crusier with battleship guns to hunt and kill cruisers.

Where does this leave the other two ships in the Battlecruiser realm specifically the Tier 1 and Tier 2 ships?

Well each ship class needs to be given its own role. I’d actually suggest dropping the 99% bonus to gang boosting except for the ‘Tier 1’ Battlecruisers and turning them into squadron leader ships. Gang boosting is a role unto itself in my view.

Tier 2 Battlecruisers should be buffed for the purpose of becoming line or assault vessels. Ships that deal a great deal of damage but not be particular fast or mobile (for the race at least… a Minmatar ship without mobility is really quite rare). The Drake would receive a slight buff in the addition of an 8th launcher slot probably (the model seems to have been designed for 8 missile launchers in mind).

Tier 3 Battlecruisers are pretty good as they are.

Destroyers:

We only have one class of Destroyers for each race. It’s sad because Destroyers in my mind have three natural roles and thus far only really fulfill one of them.

The three roles of Destroyers in the real world are pretty self explanatory:
1. ‘Destroyer Leaders’ a Gang Boost ship for the fast moving frigate gangs.
2. The Anti-Frigate escort for Cruisers and Battleships.
3. Fast Moving Destroyers that deal shockingly large amounts of damage for their size.

These roles do reflect their larger intermediate cousins the Battlecruiser, and I could see them being fulfilled in much the same way. Our current crop of destroyers could be tweaked to fit into the first role, especially ships like the Cormorant and Thrasher with their irritating 7 turrets and 8 high-slots.

Then we could get a new crop of destroyers to take the anti-frigate support role with it’s 100% bonus to frigate gun rang, and lastly a third class would be capable of using cruiser guns, be fast and maneuverable but paper thin. Those would probably be capable of around 500 DPS (compared to the 1,000+ DPS battlecruisers).

All those destroyer hulls would be of such use for those of us in Faction Warfare or if the classic Rifter blob makes a return to 0.0 since we'd actually have a sensible ship to field as command ships (Destroyer Leader classes), not to mention the utility of the up-gunned 'Heavy Destroyers' for taking on cruisers in various situations.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2 - 2012-07-20 19:57:09 UTC
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
#3 - 2012-07-20 20:39:08 UTC
I thought the 4 destroyers which already exists, fits best in group 2. The new destroyer which where anounced in the last devblog about ship-rebalance, shall have a modul for planet bombardment in Dust and they shall uses drones (amarr/gallente) or missiles (caldari/minmatar). So I think they will fit in the third group. But i don´t want another vessel with oversized weapons like stealth bomber or Tier 3 BC´s, cause destroyer are already good enough for ganks, aren´t they?

The sugestion with a support destroyer sounds interesting, I think I read it once somewhere else.

For the BC´s, I agree the tier 2 BC´s don´t really need this 99% Gang Link-CPU-bonus. If they loose this and get an extra high slot hard point or more Drone Band With (Mymydon), a lot of players would be really happy. Also it should be balanced a little bit more then just adding a further Hard point.

Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2012-07-20 21:06:41 UTC
Destroyers

I suppose you are considering a similar three-split variants of DDs? Or were you referring more of a new DD that has those three aspects?

I for one would always love to see new DD classes. These would require truly distinctive and different roles though and not just being a clone of the existing ones with moar gunz.

I would say that such new hull would be too powerful it maintained the frigate-killing aspect. DDs exist of course to kill frigate-themed vessels but in terms of having more DPS etc, it would be just a tad too strong.

I probably misinterpreted you, most likely.
Nonetheless, I think it would be good to differentiate(sp) with the current version and the new one by adding an extra term based on naval ones. Preferably, the new hull variant you suggest.

Heh, I suppose name gags are inbound just now, but I'd suggest stuff like:
- Escort (or Destroyer Escort/Escort Destroyer)
- Fleet Escort (for the gang-type)

confirthisposmed

I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#5 - 2012-07-20 22:04:03 UTC
Saul Elsyn wrote:

Tier 2 Battlecruisers should be buffed for the purpose of becoming line or assault vessels.

What? What?

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#6 - 2012-07-20 22:15:20 UTC
Saul Elsyn wrote:
Re-Balancing:
Where does this leave the other two ships in the Battlecruiser realm specifically the Tier 1 and Tier 2 ships?

Well each ship class needs to be given its own role. I’d actually suggest dropping the 99% bonus to gang boosting except for the ‘Tier 1’ Battlecruisers and turning them into squadron leader ships. Gang boosting is a role unto itself in my view.

Tier 2 Battlecruisers should be buffed for the purpose of becoming line or assault vessels. Ships that deal a great deal of damage but not be particular fast or mobile (for the race at least… a Minmatar ship without mobility is really quite rare). The Drake would receive a slight buff in the addition of an 8th launcher slot probably (the model seems to have been designed for 8 missile launchers in mind).
.


You want to buff the most overpowered and widely used ship in the game? For starters, the Drake originally HAD 8 launchers, one was removed when the T2 Bcs were nerfed because they were deemed too powerful. (Along with the Myrm's much missed drone bandwidth).

I think overall you fail to realize what tiercide means. tier 2 BCs aren't going to be universally buffed to role A or B. They aren't all the same role. A drake doesn't serve the same role as a myrmidon. While the tier 3 ships are all by and large sniper/mobility/high dps boats, the rest aren't. The myrmidon is largely a support ship, A hurricane is largely mobility/dps. The Drake, like the prophecy, is largely a tanky ship that has neither good dps, or good speed, Ideal for support or utility. (exception being the drake is overpowered in that it still has really good usable dps, the prophecy doesn't).
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-07-20 22:26:40 UTC
Personally, I'd like to see bonuses for enhancing rDPS->eDPS conversion that don't innately boost a ship's raw DPS as well as some bonuses to gang enhancement modules. Specifically I'd like to see a Caldari destroyer with a bonus to remote sensor boosters and a Gallente destroyer with a bonus to projected ECCM. I'd also like to see bonuses to things like missile (explosion) velocity or additional tracking/range bonuses.

Another bonus that might be worth considering is something along the lines of a a webber bonus for +100% range and a 50% penalty to effectiveness on any ship larger than a destroyer comes to mind.

Having said that I would like to suggest that new hulls be laid down to handle the aforementioned gang support bonuses and that these ships also be used to fill in roles/positions normal to the specific races that aren't covered by the existing destroyers. Examples:
Caldari destroyer : 6 high slots, 6 launcher hardpoints, 5 mid slots, 2 low slots. Bonus to remote sensor booster effectiveness and missile velocity or missile explosion velocity.

Gallente destroyer: 5 high slots, 4 turrent hardpoints, 4 mid slots, 4 low slots. Bonus to projected ECCM effectiveness and 5%/level bonus to drone damage, speed, and tracking. 25mb bandwidth, 50m3 drone bay.

I don't know enough about Minmatar or Amarr ships (despite flying several of both) to suggest reasonable bonuses or slot layouts to enhance those bonuses. The above suggestions retain the same total number of ship slots which may or may not be desirable, but that depends on whether these should be "equal" to existing destroyers or "superior" as in the case of the drake versus the ferox or myrmidon versus the brutix. Given CCP's desire for "tiericide" I would think that making new destroyers work while having roughly equal slots would be a good idea. /shrugs.

With regards to the OP and the suggested roles.

#1 I'm not sure I could support providing full-powered gang links for destroyers. Granted roaming frigate swarms are, in this regard, at a disadvantage against cruiser swarms, but it's a matter of practicallity with an eye towards in-game concerns against it. Specifically destroyers would either need massive power grids, thereby letting them fit at least some cruiser-sized weapons, or would need an additional role bonus to warfare link power grid usage as well as the normal CPU reduction.

Bear in mind that I'm not directly opposed to that, but I have to ask what would destroyers sacrifice to make that possible? The new t3 battlecruisers are designed like glass cannons to make fitting battleship class weapons work, so what would be proper tradeoffs for gang link destroyers? I could see providing tanking bonuses along the lines of, strictly as examples, the standard armor/shield resistances for Amarr/Caldari ships and armor/shield HP bonuses for Gallente/Minmatar ships which would allow them to survive a bit longer if/when they're found, but even then who will use them for much more than mobile, to use a term from other MMOs, stat stick? I just don't see them mattering in a fight unless they're given unreasonable offensive or defensive bonuses, and if they're going to be warped off to the middle of nowhere just to provide gang buffs while the rest of the fleet fights why not just use a T3 cruiser or even a faster BC to provide those bonuses?

#3 I like the idea and the new t3 battlecruisers set a precedent for it, but do, or rather should, destroyers mirror battlecrusiers like that? Yes, many cruisers are, or at least will be, upgraded variants of frigates for filling given roles which in turn sets a precedent for applying the same logic to the situation, but why does it need to follow suit? The question of "why should we" applies equally to the issue of gang link destroyers as it does to glass (or perhaps I should say ice) cannon destroyers, but I'll ask it here. Why should destroyers follow suit with battlecruisers and have a glass cannon variant? First and foremost destroyers are, at least for now, intended as anti-frigate platforms and have role bonuses to support that, but battlecruisers don't really do that. The gang link bonuses support small-scale fleets, but they don't really help battlecruisers wipe the floor with cruisers.

I'd love to see more destroyers myself, but much as I'd love to see glass cannons I'd prefer to see them fill some unique role in the game that aren't currently covered. If they could also be used to increase the usefulness of modules that currently might be significantly under-used that would be another benefit.
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-07-20 22:33:08 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
For starters, the Drake originally HAD 8 launchers, one was removed when the T2 Bcs were nerfed because they were deemed too powerful. (Along with the Myrm's much missed drone bandwidth).


I don't remember the drake ever having 8 launcher hardpoints on Tranquility. I understand that at one point on Singularity it had 8 hardpoints and a rate of fire bonus, but AFAIK the 8 hardpoints never made it to Tranquility. I can't recall ever having fit the high slots with anything other than 7 launchers and a drone link augment, and I've been flying them since a few months after release which was, IIRC, over a year before the great BC nerfing.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-07-21 04:38:39 UTC
Shereza wrote:
PinkKnife wrote:
For starters, the Drake originally HAD 8 launchers, one was removed when the T2 Bcs were nerfed because they were deemed too powerful. (Along with the Myrm's much missed drone bandwidth).


I don't remember the drake ever having 8 launcher hardpoints on Tranquility. I understand that at one point on Singularity it had 8 hardpoints and a rate of fire bonus, but AFAIK the 8 hardpoints never made it to Tranquility. I can't recall ever having fit the high slots with anything other than 7 launchers and a drone link augment, and I've been flying them since a few months after release which was, IIRC, over a year before the great BC nerfing.

You just answered you own question.
Saul Elsyn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-07-22 05:44:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Saul Elsyn
I think I should do a bit of clarification as to how I'd have these changes made... Some of that could be done though examples I suppose.

For Destroyers I'd break them down into these three distinct roles, with role bonuses that fit each one.
Escort Destroyers - Role Bonus: 50% bonus to light turret optimal range.
Destroyer Leaders - Role Bonus: 99.9% reduction to CPU need and 95% reduction to powergrid need of Gang Assist Modules.
Heavy Destroyers - Role Bonus: 50% reduction to CPU need 95% reduction to powergrid need of medium turrets or launchers.

I think I'll make an example of what a Destroyer Leader and Heavy Destroyer would be like...

Alternus-class Destroyer Gallente Destroyer Leader
3 Lows, 3 Mids, 7 High Slots
6 Turret Hardpoints

Gallente Destroyer Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Hybrid Optimal Range, 5% bonus to Armor Resists per level.

Role Bonus: 99.9% reduction to CPU need and 95% reduction to powergrid need of Gang Assist Modules.

Gannet-class Destroyer Caldari Heavy Destroyer
4 Lows, 4 Mids, 5 High Slots
5 Launcher Hardpoints

Caldari Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to missile velocity per level, 5% bonus to kinetic missile damage per level.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction to CPU need 95% reduction to powergrid need of medium missile launchers.

Now Battlecruisers, the Drake and Cane were brought up and both ships are definitely going to need tweaking or balancing. Though they will require some very careful changes to keep the *RAGE* down that I'm sure modifying either much would do. You guys are right in that there are some ships that don't exactly fit the tier 1 and tier 2 rough outline I made.

Well, lets go through the different classes and think about it for a bit.

Harbinger-class Battlecruiser

This is an Amarrian Attack Ship... as CCP would call it... so it's a Gank ship which means it gets bonuses to weapons. It's not meant to lead a squadron... you want a brick like the Prophecy for that. I assume that since the Punisher no longer has the dumb capacitor use bonus to lasers that there will be two real bonuses here. Like what?

Amarrian Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to medium laser turret range and 5% bonus to medium laser turret damage per level.

Should it get a role bonus? The apparent role bonus that CCP gives attack ships is a reduction to the Capacitor use of Propulsion jamming modules (Webs, scrams, and disruptors)... that really doesn't fit with a bigger vessel so... a range bonus maybe? I'm just throwing that out there because I don't really have much of an idea... Maybe a range bonus to Warp Scamblers to fit with the tendency to fight at range among the Amarr? Lets go with that.

Role Bonus: 50% bonus to Warp Scrambler and Warp Disruptor range.

Next...

Myrmidon-class Battlecruiser

It makes me cry when I see people fit non-racial guns to ships... it really does. This with it's slow 145 m/sec base speed and long range drone damage is... a "Bombardment" Ship as CCP calls them. It attacks enemies at long range with drones and railguns (hopefully). I know rails aren't really the racial weapon of the Gallente (That's blasters) but I think in this instance most people would fit rails.

Gallente Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to drone hit points, damage, and mining yield and 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Falloff per Level.

Role Bonus: 50% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Optimal Range and Drone Control Range.

I'd fly that... right now I really don't particularly like the Myrmidon, the gank Brutix feels like a much more Gallente ship to me.

Hurricane-class Battlecruiser

I love the cane and it's current configuration make it a great gank ship despite the two irritating utility high slots. I had an idea for this ship's role bonus as it's clearly an attack ship and attack ships are meant to pin down and hold down the enemy fleet so the rest of us can munch on them.

There are two ways to tackle an enemy ship, one of them is to demolish it's capacitors with Neutralizers so...

Minmatar Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage and rate of fire.

Role Bonus: 50% reduction of the capacitor need of Energy Neutralizers?

I mean, it's a common fitting and makes great sense for an 'attack' ship. Lets give it a bonus to encourage the fitting.

I'm missing one... oh right. The Drake.

Well... if you really want to know what I'd do with the Drake...

Drake-class Battlecruiser

The Drake is the Definitive 'Combat' Role ship. It tanks really well for it's size, but it's slow. The whole drake fleet doctrine comes from the idea that it's a good 'all-rounder' in that it's got a huge buffer and can hit out to 60 km with HML and so far.

So, what would I do? Change the bonuses...

Caldari Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to standard missile, heavy missile, and assault missile velocity per level and 5% bonus to shield resists per level.

The Drake gets no Role Bonus as Combat Ships are all-rounders and therefore don't get Role Bonuses.

And then I'd give it back that Missile Turret... with a range bonus it's not really a big up to DPS and ups the 'Alpha' damage making it more fitting the tasks of it in fleet or flying missions.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#11 - 2012-07-22 12:50:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Saul Elsyn wrote:


Tier 2 Battlecruisers should be buffed for the purpose of becoming line or assault vessels.


Stopped reading here tbh. Outside of minor tweaks like the addition of another 25m3 bandwidth to the Myrm and maybe a slight increase to the grid of the Harbie I really see no reason to buff these already overused ships... What's needed is an increase in slot numbers and overall fitting potential of the tier 1s to bring them inline with the tier2s...

We already have a specialized bc in the form of the tier 3s. I'd much rather see the other 2 of each race function as opposing sides of the same coin. Fulfill the same roll however provide a slightly different style of play.
Saul Elsyn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-07-23 03:31:11 UTC
My read on the new rebalancing is to give most every ship a specific role (Combat, Attack, Bombardment, Support, and Disruption being the stated primary roles). Does the Myrmidon need more bandwidth? Probably when it only has 75 for it's drones. If it's meant as a designated drone boat than 75 is clearly not enough unless you like using Medium or Light Drones.

Most ships that are being re-balanced are getting some form of buff. 80% Role Bonus to cap usage of Tackle gear for attack ships (Stated by the developers) an increase to 3-4 turrets instead of 2 for most of them? That's all buffing really.

The Tier 1 Battlecruisers will certainly be heavily buffed just so that they aren't pointless when you can fly Tier 2 ships (though I still personally use them). For Tier 1 Battlecruisers...

Prophecy-class Battlecruiser
Amarrian Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Optimal Range and 5% bonus to Armor Resists per level.
Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules.

A stand off and survive command ship (without being T2) since lets face it, you really don't want your gang bonus ship to blow up from a stiff breeze.

Ferox-class Battlecruiser
Caldari Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Optimal Range and 5% bonus to Shield Resists per level.
Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules.

Maybe reduce the number of launcher turrets? Add more slots? The ship really does have nice bonuses to the role of a command ship sitting in the rear that's hard to kill.

Brutix-class Battlecruiser
Gallente Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to the Medium Hybrid Turret Falloff and 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Damage per level.
Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules.

I'm a bit torn on whether this ship should have the armor repair bonus... Rep bonus always seems a bit weak to me, and the Brutix always struck me as a ship that tore your face off at close range. With this alternate bonus set you've got a Hybrid gunship with a bit more range... Other choices could be a reduction in Cap need for Micro Warp Drives perhaps or tracking bonus? Lots of choices if you want to replace the rep bonus. The other option is to buff the rep bonus to a 10% per level or so... since it does seem to end up being weaker then resists with a buffer setup.

Cyclone-class Battlecruiser
Minmatar Battlecruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret Rate of Fore and 5% bonus to Max Velocity per Level.
Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in the CPU need of Warfare Link modules.

Again I'll say it, I don't like Rep Bonuses. So I figure, why not buff one other factor of Minmatar ships. I mean it's either this or one of the Minmatar Command Ships that has to keep pace with a Nano gang right? Other ones I considered was reduction in cap usage for MWD and Afterburners, reduction in sig radius and so forth...

I'd also seriously consider looking at the number of turrets and missile hardpoints. The Hurricane makes pretty good sense with it's double bonus to Projectiles and six turrets, but the Cyclone only has 5 turrets and a single bonus to them... We need to up the turrets to a 6 or 7 or give a double bonus to the turrets I think. Now looking back on it maybe a bonus to projectile turret falloff might be better.

I'm always open to suggestions and criticisms but to simply stop reading isn't really a good response when you see something. Read it through then respond.
Saul Elsyn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-08-07 15:37:07 UTC
Since Destroyers are coming up next...

How should the Tier 1 Destroyers be Rebalanced?

I've heard a number of suggestions, but I think I'll put down my personal thoughts first.

Catalyst-class Destroyer
Gallente Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Falloff and 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Tracking Speed per level.
Role Bonus: 50% bonus to Optimal Range of Small Hybrid Turrets.

CPU: 210 Teraflops (+40)
Powergrid: 70 Megawatts (+10)

Low Slots: 3
Mid Slots: 2
High Slots: 8

Turrets: 8
Launchers: 0

A classic Blaster Platform in many ways, the increase in CPU and Powergrid will allow it to be used to it's full potential with damage mods and armor plates occupying the lows and full sets of blasters in the High Slots. Should have one of the highest DPS of any destroyer... though the Thrasher should be very close or it's equal.

Coercer-class Destroyer
Amarr Destroyer Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret Damage and 10% bonus to Small Energy Turret Tracking Speed per level.
Role Bonus: 50% bonus to Optimal Range of Small Energy Turrets.

CPU: 200 Teraflops (+40)
Powergrid: 90 Megawatts (+15)

Low Slots: 4
Mid Slots: 1
High Slots: 8

Turrets: 8
Launchers: 0

At Intermediate Ranges the Coercer-class is a devastating high DPS platform. Increases to CPU and Powergrid will allow the ship to fit more tanking or damage augmentation modules as well as more comfortably use it's full 8 guns.

Cormorant-class Destroyer
Caldari Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Tracking Speed and 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret Optimal Range per level.
Role Bonus: 50% bonus to Optimal Range of Small Hybrid Turrets.

CPU: 225 Teraflops (+10)
Powergrid: 75 Megawatts (+20)

Low Slots: 1
Mid Slots: 4
High Slots: 8

Turrets: 8 (+1)
Launchers: 0 (-1)

The increase to CPU and Powergrid will allow the ship to fit 8x 150mm Railguns with max skills and a Magnetic Stabilizer, thus increasing its DPS to a more viable level. The bonuses to Range and tracking make the Cormorant an astonishing sniper. Without a prop mod it can hit to over 100km with it's railguns and the proper skills creating a zone where Interceptors and other frigates fear to tread. With a prop mod it's range drops to a mere 80km or so, but that's still awesome on a small turret hull.

Thrasher-class Destroyer
Minmatar Destroyer Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Tracking Speed and 5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Damage per level.
Role Bonus: 50% bonus to Optimal Range of Small Projectile Turrets.

CPU: 185 Teraflops (+15)
Powergrid: 95 Megawatts (+10)

Low Slots: 2
Mid Slots: 3
High Slots: 8

Turrets: 8 (+1)
Launchers: 0 (-1)

Adding another turret and dropping the missile launcher greatly augments the Thrasher, with a few increases to powergrid and CPU the ship becomes equally viable as a close range autocannon boat or a long range artillery hull. In the Artillery Configuration it can deliver over 1,000 damage in an alpha strike making for a viable small ship for 'alpha' fleets. It's utility as an autocannon ship is self evident. With three Mids it can also act as a tackler ship when needed.