Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Greetings esteemed developers of the World's Finest MMO (Back bitter vets! Back!)

With the recent (and generous) changes to Assault Ships, Destroyers and our beloved T1 Frigates, its becoming clear that Interceptors are currently suffering as their traditional target selection rapidly diminishes.

No doubt, you are aware of this and 'Interceptor polish' is on the 'to-do' list.

To that end I'd like to offer some thoughts.

Interceptors have always been the speedy, fragile and oh so cool tackle support ships and Interceptor pilots take pride in that theme (honestly).

I suggest that any radical changes to slot layout be avoided, rather you should modestly augment them all for the Interceptor role (making 'wannabe-interceptor' fits on other ships look, well, 'wannabe') and accent what each Interceptor already does best currently (or struggles to do, as is the case for some >.>).



As an Amarr Purist (all my toons, heh) I can only speak with regard to the Malediction and Crusader with any first hand experience, so allow me to rant on them.

The Crusader has lost almost all utility next to an Interceptor styled Slicer fit (with its 20k optimals and high DPS) and, due to the extremely limited Power Grid, Cap and CPU resources on the Crusader, it almost utterly fails as a brawler (an appropriately fit Slicer outshines it here too). This is one ship that - currently - screams for some love.

So, my suggestion is that the Crusader receive a +5% bonus to small energy turret optimal range per level (of the Interceptor skill).

This would return the Crusader to the role it enjoyed long ago, which is basically the laser cousin of the Crow. This is no radical change and would make a kite fit Slicer look somewhat crude next to the TII Crusader when it's fulfilling its intended role. This is as it should be, in my opinion - an uncontroversial one, I expect.

The Malediction is, in many ways, the 'Rifter' among Interceptors. It shines both as a pure long range point platform (with completely adequate defensive anti-drone weaponry) and as a reckless yet wild bleeder/brawler (dual rep + booster, or even plated with TD and surprising resists etc - it's as configurable as a Rifter in many ways too, shield buffer Maledictions can also be feasible). So, if it's not broken, don't 'fix' it (slot lay out changes *waves finger* tsk tsk).

That said, if every Interceptor is to receive a new bonus to the Interceptor skill (and that's the whole point of this post really - make it so!), then let 5% cap recharge rate per level be that bonus for the Malediction. This is modest, uncontroversially 'good/fine/welcome' (note i'm not asking to 'ungimp' its near-embarrasing DPS - though others might) and it fits the Khanid theme well.

That's all I have to say regarding specific ships, I encourage other 'ceptor pilots to offer their ideas for modest, bottom line changes to other the Interceptors out there and to muse over my bolded abstract at the top of this post. I'm really curious as to what the rest of you think. So,

If each Interceptor should receive a unique new bonus, what do you think it should be for each ship?

And,

Do you think each 'ceptor hull should be 5% faster than it is currently?

And,

Do you think a blanket 75% reduction to MWD signature radius penalty for each 'ceptor (what you have with X Interceptor V currently) is warranted now that Assault Frigates have received a blanket 50% reduction as standard (in addition to an extra slot and way more pew)

Discuss.

The concept behind the rebalancing is that T1 ships should be general all-rounders, and T2 should be much more specialised towards specific roles.

While I have some reservations about the direction that appears to be taking us in, its clear that when the time comes for interceptors to be reworked we're going to see a lot more emphasis on them performing their designated role of going fast and tackling things. I wouldn't be too surprised to see weapon bonuses going away completely from some, if not all, of the hulls.

Yes yes!

Some of the most sensible things I've heard about interceptors for ages. Glad Somebody thinks they need some loving, because as it stands right now with all the T1 tweaks they're badly done to. I totally agree with everything Vaal says.

One thing I can compare this to ... I am a Rifter/Jaguar/Wolf enthusiast. Love the ships. But even with the recent buff to the rifter, the wolf and the jag each outperform the rifter in both tank and damage output. This is a problem because the rifter, despite the buff, is still obsolete in its role as a damage/tank platform. I still have no reason to fly the rifter, which is a shame. It's still obsolete.

Now, if things were changed so that, say, the Jag specialized heavily in damage output (love me my arty jag) while not tanking as well as the rifter ... and the Wolf specialized in tanking while not dealing as much damage as the rifter ... suddenly I have more choices as a pilot. I could opt for heavy tank (at the cost of damage), or heavy damage (at the cost of tank), or a mix of both (at the cost of not being particularly phenominal at either.)

Unless that tackle absolutely, positively has to be there overnight. New slasher also doesn't actually tank as well as the rifter, unless I'm mistaken. Makes a difference when going up against other frigates or destroyers, where small weapons will still be able to land solid hits on you.

Basically, by my understanding, CCPs intention is that both combat vessels and attack vessels should have comparable damage output, while combat vessels should have much better tanks (which rifter is admittedly lacking ... where's the tank bonus?) and attack vessels should have much greater speed.

This is true when it comes to combat frigs going up against larger weapons (especially in bigger fleet fights ... the more ships on the field, the more spread out the ships are, the less tracking actually matters as you'll typically always be able to hit *something*, including frigates.)

However, where the combat frigates shine isn't necessarily tackling. It's in dealing with other frigates (or even drones.) Arty jag, for instance, is most interceptors' worst nightmare (barring the odd interceptor that fights within web range, for some strange reason.) If two roaming frig gangs come up against each other, the one with more combat frigs has an edge. In a big fleet battle, even, combat frigs aren't likely to be primary targets any time soon, which leaves them free to deal with enemy frigates (or even possibly to start popping enemy drones, taking some damage/utility off the field.)

Granted, they don't take out frigs/drones as well as destroyers do, but then, they're significantly safer from medium weapons than destroyers are as well.

EDIT: (Tangent) Also ... do not understand the phrase "honour duel" ... isn't honor something that is given to you by others ("You honor us with your presence," or, "Sit next to me, honored guest?") I never understood why people seem to believe that it's some self-righteous moral code that they can use to pretend to be superior to others. Makes those sorts of people less honorable, not more honorable. End tangent.

Ugh, mass re-balancing. "Well, frigates are better now, so we should buff inties."

But then inties will be better, and we'll have to buff arty-canes and Huginns!

This is exactly what I don't want to happen to EVE. I'd rather have a few useless T1 frigate and cruiser hulls than have people going through every ship in EVE screwing everything up when the current ship pool works (albeit not ideally). How many years will it take to iron out the next set of balancing problems that get introduced...

I did read your OP, unfortunately for my brain parts.

Good point Vaal. Ideally the Inty's can recieve a 'balanced' update with modified drawbacks to compensate where necesary.

i agree with interceptors needing an overhaul as it stands they are outgunned and outrun (making a speedster pointless) by a lot of non interceptors they are designed to be fast and agile tacklers but is outdone by a lot of t1 frigs which is something that i can not imaginate was the intent when the ship type was designed