These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
mkint
#201 - 2012-08-17 15:25:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie: what metrics are you going to use to determine if these changes are successful? I.e. these frigs not only get used more but get used for their intended purpose? I can't imagine any changes you could make that would make td and damps a better choice than fitting 'wrong' ewar. If any of these balance changes fails, how will you detect that and how will you compensate?

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#202 - 2012-08-17 16:26:33 UTC
mkint wrote:
CCP Fozzie: what metrics are you going to use to determine if these changes are successful? I.e. these frigs not only get used more but get used for their intended purpose? I can't imagine any changes you could make that would make td and damps a better choice than fitting 'wrong' ewar. If any of these balance changes fails, how will you detect that and how will you compensate?


Feedback from the forums, the test servers, the CSM, the pvp experience of devs using the ships, with a light salting of statistics here and there.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#203 - 2012-08-17 16:41:46 UTC
heyy fozzie! nice to see u on the forums and keeping in touch with us!

in terms of these ewar frigs etc... and general frig combat, i couldnt be cheeky and ask u to check out the second part of this post could i? Blink

<3
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#204 - 2012-08-17 16:47:30 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
heyy fozzie! nice to see u on the forums and keeping in touch with us!

in terms of these ewar frigs etc... and general frig combat, i couldnt be cheeky and ask u to check out the second part of this post could i? Blink

<3


I'd kinda rather just let frigates in certain circumstances use ewar against supercaps so that the supercaps need to be supported by fleets that can pick off the ewar frigates.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#205 - 2012-08-17 16:50:35 UTC
thanks for ur time bro!
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#206 - 2012-08-17 17:50:17 UTC  |  Edited by: MotherMoon
I still wonder why you don't nerf EW and boost the bonuses on EW ships to keep them where they are today.

You did this for webs, and it has made web strenght ships very important and gives them their own role. Targeters on target painter ships are weaker than when used on a ship that isn't built for EW.

This is due to your love of making non combat ships have the weakest tanks. I'd rather put a target painter on a ruppy, why would i put it on a ship that is just going to die in two hits and only get a small 50% bonus to target painter strength? That means if i fit 2 it's like I'm fitting 3 of them. But would rather have 2 of them since the difference isn't that big, on a ship better handled to staying alive.

In fact with the changes the tanky combat frigates work better for simple Ewar like painters and damps.

If you don't want EW to have EW and tank or EW and speed. And make them just EW focused, then you should be going farther with the changes to how EW works.

I still heavily suggest nerfing damp range on non-EW ships and so on so EW ships are actully better. Twice as good at least at EW. That will make them wroth it.

imo

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
#207 - 2012-08-17 18:55:01 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

I'd kinda rather just let frigates in certain circumstances use ewar against supercaps so that the supercaps need to be supported by fleets that can pick off the ewar frigates.

Completely off topic, but all ships should be able to use e-war against all ships, perhaps at a reduced effectiveness. Super capital immunity shouldn't be a 0 or 1 thing. Perhaps all ships' ewar is effective at a N% rate. Choose N% for balance purposes.
Irregessa
Obfuscation and Reflections
#208 - 2012-08-17 20:16:23 UTC
TP would need a serious revamp to make it useful. The skill Signature Focusing does so little (5% bonus per level) compared to what fleet boosts can directly counter it ( -32.34% from a claymore). ECM is weakly countered by one of the information links, which are rarely used anyway. Damps are countered a little by the Information Warfare and Leadership skills themselves, and TD is not countered by any fleet boosts. So not only is TP the only non-disruptive ewar, it is the ewar most completely countered by fleet boosts. I'm not asking for those fleet boosts to be changed, but that TP needs to be made useful, especially if the revamped and balanced minmatar ewar frig is to be specialized in it.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#209 - 2012-08-18 11:16:06 UTC
It won't be now, but at some point Minmatar is going to need a new Ewar. Maybe when EWar is looked at and tweaked/revamped they will do that. Until then, the situation has been inherited from the early years of EVE.

I do agree that boosting the skill would be useful.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#210 - 2012-08-18 20:58:04 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
It won't be now, but at some point Minmatar is going to need a new Ewar. Maybe when EWar is looked at and tweaked/revamped they will do that. Until then, the situation has been inherited from the early years of EVE.

I do agree that boosting the skill would be useful.

I just thought to this : maybe minmatar already have speed to protect themselves and hence don't really need EWAR to do the job. They are supposed to have weak electronic to compensate for their speed supremacy.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#211 - 2012-08-19 00:50:33 UTC
Mimitar should be sig radius control as it's EW. Maybe we need painters to both increase the target Sig while lowering your own?

Still th larger point is where painters do work it's on unbonused ships. Fix that :/

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#212 - 2012-08-19 10:52:43 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
Mimitar should be sig radius control as it's EW. Maybe we need painters to both increase the target Sig while lowering your own?

Still th larger point is where painters do work it's on unbonused ships. Fix that :/


yes this is perhaps the most pertinent point the only time you use TP's is on torp ravens/phoons to get full dmg out of t2 torps 4-5 across a fleet this is usually achieved even on bc's so the issue needs to be to have a big enough impact that you have to use a vigil or other bonused TP ship.... although ofc SB's use TP's and if TP's did get nerfed in effectiveness they may need a bonus to get their weapons to do enough dmg.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Saile Litestrider
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#213 - 2012-08-19 12:30:48 UTC
I like the looks of the new crucifier. It seems like a nice stepping stone to the sentinel (in fact, better than the sentinel in a lot of ways, I hope this means what I think it does for the sentinel Big smile). The bonuses seem kind of lopsided to me though. The Amarr EWar loadout is TDs and Neuts, and I know that you know that everyone is going to want to slap neuts in those highslots. The problem is that it's set up for extreme range in the TDs and no range in the neuts. I think it would be far better to either replace the TD range bonus with a neut amount bonus, or replace the TD amount bonus with a neut range bonus (hopefully an even heftier one than is on the sentinel, geared specifically toward small neuts). What I'm trying to get at is that it should use both the Amarr Ewar types, not just one, and it should stick to either long range or effectiveness with both of them. Then the sentinel can fill in the blanks with its other two bonuses.

Also, I really wish passive tanking missile ships weren't so completely immune to Amarr EWar Ugh
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#214 - 2012-08-19 13:54:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
mm.. i would like to see all weapons use cap too aswell as the missile disruption promised at fanfest

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
#215 - 2012-08-19 23:32:09 UTC
Dumb idea: Give target painters (or create new ewar) that does the launcher disruption role for missiles that CCP proposed for tracking disruptors.
Sui'Djin
BRGF Reunion
#216 - 2012-08-20 11:38:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Sui'Djin
MotherMoon wrote:
Mimitar should be sig radius control as it's EW. Maybe we need painters to both increase the target Sig while lowering your own?

Still th larger point is where painters do work it's on unbonused ships. Fix that :/



interesting idea. Why shouldn't painters be able to also decrease a targets' signature (via inverter script)? This way they could also have a defensive roll and maybe help logistics. It would make painters more versatile.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#217 - 2012-08-20 12:15:37 UTC
Sui'Djin wrote:

interesting idea. Why shouldn't painters be able to also decrease a targets' signature (via inverter script)? This way they could also have a defensive roll and maybe help logistics. It would make painters more versatile.

This would be support ; though, maybe a script to increase sig res of ennemy turrets ?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#218 - 2012-08-20 13:01:39 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Sui'Djin wrote:

interesting idea. Why shouldn't painters be able to also decrease a targets' signature (via inverter script)? This way they could also have a defensive roll and maybe help logistics. It would make painters more versatile.

This would be support ; though, maybe a script to increase sig res of ennemy turrets ?


This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#219 - 2012-08-20 13:49:42 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.

Why would this be unfortunate ? Both modules would still be different and both would keep some flavour. The fact they would have the same effect is only a consequence of the tracking formula. It's not ideal, but if the tracking formula ever change, then it's very different. BTW, target painter already are exactly like tracking computer, but aimed on the target instead of the pilot.

There is not so many things EWAR can apply to in the end.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#220 - 2012-08-20 16:53:57 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

This was one of the suggestions that came up in internal brainstorming as well, unfortunately it actually has the exact same effect as a tracking disruptor since sig res and tracking are both equal in the tracking formula.

Why would this be unfortunate ? Both modules would still be different and both would keep some flavour. The fact they would have the same effect is only a consequence of the tracking formula. It's not ideal, but if the tracking formula ever change, then it's very different. BTW, target painter already are exactly like tracking computer, but aimed on the target instead of the pilot.

There is not so many things EWAR can apply to in the end.


Because then one is completely obsoleting the other. You would never see both when one is obviously better than the other.