These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Winter] EW Frigate Rebalance

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lunaleil Fournier
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2012-08-13 12:29:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Lunaleil Fournier
CCP Fozzie,

I posted this in the destroyer thread for Ytterbium, but would appreciate your opinions on ship variation and uniqueness as well ....


I am concerned that ships undergoing re-balancing are starting to look a bit too.....standardized. While standardization makes balancing easier, it saps uniqueness and variation from the different races and ships within the same class.

The slot layouts for destroyers....8/2/3 or 8/3/2.
You did this also for the EAFs.....2/4/3 or 2/5/2.
All ships within these two classes also have bonuses that mirror each other (racially, of course)

Where's the variation? Why are there only 2 slot layouts per class instead of 3 or 4? Where's the destroyer that uses speed and damage to take out frigs, the destroyer that's slower but focuses on scram/web to take them out, and the destroyer that doesn't have the big damage but tanks the assault frigates better? (I'll refer to these as sub-roles)

Lets take Combat Recons for example. Same role, EW based. 4 different slot layouts. All have racial EW bonuses, but fight very different because of their sub-roles....Huginn based on slowing people down, Lachesis based on locking people down, Curse based on disabling ships down, and Rook based on jamming ships down. Shouldn't all ship classes try to be as varied and interesting?

Can you take some time to explain your philosophy on keeping ships within the same class unique, while making them balanced?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#102 - 2012-08-13 12:43:31 UTC
Lunaleil Fournier wrote:
CCP Fozzie,

I posted this in the destroyer thread for Ytterbium, but would appreciate your opinions on ship variation and uniqueness as well .... (I'd say maybe the racial EW bonuses should be a role bonus, and a ship bonus be added to add uniqueness in the case of EAFs)


I am concerned that ships undergoing re-balancing are starting to look a bit too.....standardized. While standardization makes balancing easier, it saps uniqueness and variation from the different races and ships within the same class.

The slot layouts for destroyers....8/2/3 or 8/3/2.
You did this also for the EAFs.....2/4/3 or 2/5/2.
All ships within these two classes also have bonuses that mirror each other (racially, of course)

Where's the variation? Why are there only 2 slot layouts per class instead of 3 or 4? Where's the destroyer that uses speed and damage to take out frigs, the destroyer that's slower but focuses on scram/web to take them out, and the destroyer that doesn't have the big damage but tanks the assault frigates better? (I'll refer to these as sub-roles)

Lets take Combat Recons for example. Same role, EW based. 4 different slot layouts. All have racial EW bonuses, but fight very different because of their sub-roles....Huginn based on slowing people down, Lachesis based on locking people down, Curse based on disabling ships down, and Rook based on jamming ships down. Shouldn't all ship classes try to be as varied and interesting?

Can you take some time to explain your philosophy on keeping ships within the same class unique, while making them balanced?


It's an excellent point, but one thing we've found is that making viable ships with few slots (like frigates that are stuck at 9 or 10 slots, or destroyers which have 8 of their 13 slots locked up in the highs) limits options for slot layouts quite a bit. Once we get to ships with more than 10 slots it gets easier and easier to vary the slot layouts between each ship.

We're counting on other statistics and bonuses to vary the way each ship flies more than the slot layouts for frigates and destroyers. That being said we're always looking to take feedback into account and you may see some slot changes to increase variation as best we can while keeping all the ships useful.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Lunaleil Fournier
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#103 - 2012-08-13 13:07:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lunaleil Fournier
Thanks for the response!

That's a very fair argument for the smaller classes of ships and I fully support having variation where possible but focusing on making every ship useful ;)
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#104 - 2012-08-13 14:28:22 UTC
I think it is imperative to feature a handfull of frigate specific modules to give the ships more versatility.

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.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#105 - 2012-08-13 14:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Giving a drone back isn't going to really solve the issue with the Vigil.

One of the reasons I fell in love with the Vigil was because of how flexible it was as a hull. It could be a little combat boat, or a little ewar platform (rarely for TP), or it could do a little armor tanking or a little shield tanking, etc. I think you have to let the Minmatar propensity for flexibility show itself here to let the Vigil shine.

Because, OK, little Vigil, you can't really do any disruption better than any other frigate - but! you can do a little support TP when you need it, OR you can do a little combat for surprise if you really need it, etc.


Recommend slot layout of 2H, 4M, 3L with a couple extra drones, and it can maybe do a little armor tanking, or a little extra DPS, or a little EWAR (Forget about TPs, seriously). Or a little bit of speed. Ya, the mid slot seems like a bit loss for an EWAR platform, but seriously, how many TPs do you want on the Vigil?

  • Fleet Support Vigil Mid Slots
  • 1MWD, 2xTarget Painter, 1MASB(or SASB), 1 Warp Disruptor (cuz you can?)

  • Small Gang Vigil
  • 1MWD, 1Warp Disruptor, 1TP, 1xMASB, redundant mid slot, rather have it for a low slot for speed, Micro Auxiliary Power core, etc

  • Solo Vigil
  • 1MWD, 1 Warp Disruptor, 1TD, 1xMASB, redundant mid slot, rather have it for more damage.


    • Also, you didn't seem to acknowledge me recommendation for a little more PG on these ships:

    1 or 2 Extra PG on these fits will make them a little more friendly to fly, you really cutting it close to the chest and this is with L5 skills.

    https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1770650#post1770650

    Quote:
    25PG With L5 Skills = 31.25 PG

    1MN MWD (Meta) - 15 PG = 16.25 PG
    LML II ................... - 8.1 PG x2 = .05 PG remaining

    And where am i supposed to fit the Target Painter?

    OR Meta 4 launchers 7.2x2 = 1.85 PG

    So I can only fit 1 TP but have 3 mid slots open?

    I think your PG on all the ships seems low TBH. Give them a boost so that they can actually have some fitting space. I understand these aren't DPS ships, but giving them the ability to fit 22 DPS or maybe some tank (God forbid) is hardly going to break them.

    Where I am.
    Del Vikus
    Sundered Core
    #106 - 2012-08-13 15:03:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Del Vikus
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    From the feedback you've been giving I'm preparing the next (and definitely not the last) set of slight tweaks to the ship design, including heavily considering giving the Griffin and the Vigil their drone buddies back. Will update the OP soon.

    To answer a few specific concerns:

    I don't think we'll be seeing the full speed of an old level 5 Vigil return. The only way to balance that kind of speed on a t1 ewar frigate is to make the ship otherwise suck, which isn't really the direction we want to go with it. If you are looking for a superfast tech one frigate I advise taking a peek at the new Slasher, it's pretty dope.

    The idea of matching the painter bonus with a missile damage bonus was actually the first one on the table, but we rejected it mainly because painters have virtually no effect on frigate size missiles in practical use. Look for the idea to return at ship sizes where it can work more effectively.


    Thanks for the response, it's nice to have constructive dialogue.

    I think the consensus here is that nobody really considers the Vigil speed bonus to be a heavy advantage -- but rather something which added to the ship's versatility in many, many situations. Despite its utter badness as an EWAR frigate, you still saw lots of Vigils in space, because their layout was very good, and the speed bonus WAS their tank. Nobody won wars in Vigils, but lots of solo pilots -- myself included -- benefited from their versatility and speed, despite the TP bonus.

    I completely understand wanting to revamp the ship in line with the Disruption model. So major points for "vision." The problem is that EWAR mechanics simply in no way compensate -- I mean that, in NO WAY -- for what is being lost. Even if you doubled the TP bonuses (which I'm not recommending), it would not come close to making up for the lost low slot and the lost speed bonus. A single drone is meaningless, too. (And by the way, I don't mind at all that the single drone was lost.)

    I think you need to go back to the table with the Vigil, or do the necessary work to make TPs worthwhile. I think it's quite a sign that nearly everyone in a ship forum is giving you the same feedback on a ship! :) Take it seriously! Save the Vigil!
    CCP Fozzie
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #107 - 2012-08-13 15:10:55 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
    To a large extent we are intending the Slasher to take the place of the old Vigil.
    You're right that it was a really fun ship: I have great memories of defending POS against overwhelming assaults using nothing but alpha clone vigil characters and gunners.
    That being said, part of the revamp of the EW frig class is that we want to make all of the ships viable for ewar, not just for being fast. In the case of the Vigil, it will be getting worse for solo play, although I do believe that the optimal bonus will give it a place in fleets (try to fight an army of Tengus and then tell me TPs are useless). We also want to make TPs more usable in more situations, but that will primarily involve changes to the rest of the environment as opposed to changes to the TP module itself.

    As for the fittings question, yes I do think we can reasonably increase the PG on the Vigil without causing problems. Main reason for the intentionally tight PG is to prevent people from too easily fitting heavy buffer tanks, but we may have pushed that a bit too far.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
    X Gallentius
    Black Eagle1
    #108 - 2012-08-13 15:26:05 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    That being said, part of the revamp of the EW frig class is that we want to make all of the ships viable for ewar, not just for being fast.
    The drone bonus on the Maulus and the large drone bays on the Crucible and Mauls still confuses me. How do these features make these ships better at EW? I'd really love to understand the thinking behind this. Are they a balance to the extra midslot of the other EW frigs? Don't get me wrong - I can think of many great uses for the drone-bonused Maulus but none of them correspond to using the ship as a remote sensor dampening platform.
    Del Vikus
    Sundered Core
    #109 - 2012-08-13 15:38:28 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    We also want to make TPs more usable in more situations, but that will primarily involve changes to the rest of the environment as opposed to changes to the TP module itself.


    I have no idea what that means. Could you be a little more specific?

    Quote:
    As for the fittings question, yes I do think we can reasonably increase the PG on the Vigil without causing problems. Main reason for the intentionally tight PG is to prevent people from too easily fitting heavy buffer tanks, but we may have pushed that a bit too far.


    That, at least, is good to hear. Previous feedback was right about this, so glad you're listening!
    Shandir
    EVE University
    Ivy League
    #110 - 2012-08-13 16:01:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Shandir
    Can I suggest a role bonus that limits or removes the stacking penalty for their special type of EWAR in small-medium groups?

    So that, for example, a swarm of TP frigs can be overwhelming, but 1, 2 or 3 is not *that* big a deal.

    They're frigates, they're supposed to be force of numbers, but with (non-ECM) modules - 4+ is irrelevant until they start exploding.

    Edit: This would also help balance out the fact that ECM doesn't really suffer a stacking penalty, just weakly diminishing returns.
    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #111 - 2012-08-13 16:27:50 UTC
    Quote:
    MAULUS:

    Frigate skill bonuses:
    7.5% Bonus to Sensor Damp effectiveness per level
    10% Bonus to Drone MWD velocity and Drone control range per level
    Slot layout: 2 H (-1), 4 M (+1), 3 L (+1), 2 turrets
    Fittings: 26 PWG (+1), 230 CPU (+10)
    Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 300(-13) / 350(-1) / 400(+71)
    Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 275 (+25)/ 150s (-37.5s)/ 1.8333333 (+0.5)
    Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass): 375 (+69) / 3.25(-0.626) / 1063000
    Drones (bandwidth / bay): 20(+10) / 30(+20)
    Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 64.5km (+14.5) / 520 (+100) / 6
    Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric
    Signature radius: 40 (-8)
    Cargo capacity: 275 (+100)


    honestly if you are going to increase the speed you also need to increase the tracking or else the drones wont be hitting anything...

    There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #112 - 2012-08-13 16:39:55 UTC
    John Nucleus wrote:

    This looks like a very fun ship to fly, add the TD effect to missile and it's gold.


    sure thing just make it so tacking comps and tracking enhancers affect missiles and we are game!

    give them a flight time bonus a explosion velocity bonus and for te's give them a explosion radius bonus...

    There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
    Dersen Lowery
    The Scope
    #113 - 2012-08-13 16:44:35 UTC
    Shandir wrote:
    Can I suggest a role bonus that limits or removes the stacking penalty for their special type of EWAR in small-medium groups?

    So that, for example, a swarm of TP frigs can be overwhelming, but 1, 2 or 3 is not *that* big a deal.

    They're frigates, they're supposed to be force of numbers, but with (non-ECM) modules - 4+ is irrelevant until they start exploding.

    Edit: This would also help balance out the fact that ECM doesn't really suffer a stacking penalty, just weakly diminishing returns.


    I just thought of a change that would make the Vigil and its cousins viable as TP platforms: Change TP modules so that they only make the targeted ship look clearer for the ship doing the painting, unless the ship is a dedicated TP EWAR ship. That way, you can have a couple of Vigils along to balloon enemy sig radiuses for the whole fleet without worrying about a drake blob all TPing the same target, blowing its sig up to the size of a planet, and then welping it with HMLs.

    The main drawback is that this change might involve some tricky changes to pretty fundamental code. But I think it could work.

    Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

    I voted in CSM X!
    Dersen Lowery
    The Scope
    #114 - 2012-08-13 16:44:51 UTC
    [Stupid Firefox.]

    Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

    I voted in CSM X!
    PinkKnife
    The Cuddlefish
    Ethereal Dawn
    #115 - 2012-08-13 17:33:50 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    From the feedback you've been giving I'm preparing the next (and definitely not the last) set of slight tweaks to the ship design, including heavily considering giving the Griffin and the Vigil their drone buddies back. Will update the OP soon.


    Please stop gimping Gallente by giving drones out like free candy to every ship that might want some.
    Obsidiana
    Atrament Inc.
    #116 - 2012-08-13 17:37:11 UTC
    Well, sounds to me tat CCP is dead set on giving the Vigil a TP bonus and keeping TP as the Minmatar "disruption" type. Everyone I know thinks that this is a joke and I've seen more than one thread to that effect. No, no one agrees on an answer, but most agree on the problem: TP is not disruptive.

    Case in point:
    The TP bonus on the Golem does not disrupt anything. I just lets it hit small things that a BS gun would need a tracking enhancer to hit.
    VENGA uses TPs on SBs for the same reason in PvP. If they want disrupting, the use SDs.

    Disrutpion mean that they do less damage.
    TP is the reverse of disruption.
    The proposed Vigil in not a disruption frigate.


    It lets you do more damage. If anything, it is anti-EWar, like external tracking enhancers. Those do the same thing. They are not EWar; they are counter EWar. Same thing for external ECCM. Same thing for external anti-cap-drain (cap transfer).


    TP is also out of line with EWar ships design philosophy. The idea is that they should have weak to moderate defenses because they have a powerful defensive mechanism in EWar. ECM, SD, and TD all can make a ship invulnerable under specific circumstances. ECM can break and block locks. SD can put medium targets out of lock range. TD can do basically the same thing to guns. In no way can TP directly protect a ship, leaving the ship vulnerable and weak at the same time.
    Nikuno
    Atomic Heroes
    #117 - 2012-08-13 17:49:12 UTC
    I fear with the Maulus drone bonus that you are taking your eye off the ball. The other frigs have dual ew bonuses - regardless of the relative effectiveness of the various ew types, this sets the frigs up to make best use of these bonuses for fleets of all sizes versus ships of all sizes. The Maulus drone bonus directly sets this ship as an ew frig to fight 1v1 with other frigs. You have stripped it of it's fleet role in one simple stroke. There is not a single rational player who would claim that a frig with such a limited form of ew, and realistically only 2 slots available for the purpose, is viable in the role given to the other 3.

    I want gallente ships to viable in fleets, please stop excluding them by design Shocked
    MotherMoon
    Tribal Liberation Force
    Minmatar Republic
    #118 - 2012-08-13 17:50:35 UTC  |  Edited by: MotherMoon
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    I'd rather make target painters good, but that's actually a fairly complex issue. (Doesn't make me any less interested in doing it, just means it might take some time)


    Can't you just increase the bonus? Make the difference between using a target painter on a normal ship and using it on a target painter bonused ship something more like,

    20% bonus to painter strength per level?

    You can even nerf the painters a bit. But by increasing the gap between a normal painter and a boosted painter I think it gives the ships a role and fixes painters at the same time. I think that's what breaks them, if you make painters too good, then why use a special EW bonus ship? If target painters were really good the I'd just use a rfiter with a target painter instead of the Vigil.

    I think you need to rethink the whole way EW is balanced. In fact a great example is why you handle webs. Ships with a web bonus almost turn the web into a whole new module. 150% bonus to web range? yes please and thank you ccp.

    The Vigil should get a 150% bonus to painter strength. The damp ships should get similar bonuses. Making damps AMAZING on damp ships and meh pretty good on non-specialized ships. Just like you did with webs.

    And if you read this and think, "no that's a bad idea haha stupid player" then give us a reason why webs get such a huge bonus and other modules do not. That's all I ask.

    http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg
    Obsidiana
    Atrament Inc.
    #119 - 2012-08-13 17:55:34 UTC
    Target painters are good... on a Golem, a CNR, and a SB.
    X Gallentius
    Black Eagle1
    #120 - 2012-08-13 18:22:34 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
    Nikuno wrote:
    I want gallente ships to viable in fleets, please stop excluding them by design Shocked
    I was expecting a capacitor bonus on rsd's since not being cap stable is what really kills the current Maulus. If the ship were able to apply damps and be cap stable (without having to put in multiple cap mods) it would be an effective e-war platform.