These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

CCP, any thoughts on Navy Issue/ faction frigs and cruisers?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1 - 2012-09-13 00:49:36 UTC
I have scanned through the various dev blogs and threads in the Features forums, but have seen little comment on the Navy or faction frigs and cruisers.

Are they getting some kind of overhaul as well?

From what I see, CCP, you have one nasty balancing act to perform.

You have essentially 4 classes of any hull size: T1, T1 Navy, T1 Faction, and T2 (I am not even going to get started on T3 cruisers).
Perhaps you can tell us what precisely what your vision is regarding the overall hierarchy of the 4 classes.

I know the common answer will be "each has strengths and weaknesses, and a specific role", but I am hoping you can clarify where you see the ships falling in an overarching hierarchy?

I would be most disappointed to find when this is all said and done that basic T1 hulls are superior to T1 Navy hulls.
In many cases that is already true, but this overhaul has the potential to real hammer any utility that is left in some of the Navy hulls, and maybe some of the faction hulls as well.
TRUE ZER0
SILENT INC
#2 - 2012-09-13 00:55:49 UTC
Can't wait for the new SFI
Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-09-13 00:56:41 UTC
They navy frigates and all the pirate ships were all redesigned pretty recently. The navy cruisers could probably use some work though.
Tyraeil Starblade
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-09-13 01:03:07 UTC
Anya Ohaya wrote:
They navy frigates and all the pirate ships were all redesigned pretty recently. The navy cruisers could probably use some work though.


I believe he's talking about stats being reworked, not anything visual.
Ashterothi
The Order of Thelemic Ascension
The Invited
#5 - 2012-09-13 01:09:14 UTC
This dev blog may be to your interests: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=9129

Lord knows how accurate it still it.

Watch me live for all your Empyrean news and analysis!

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#6 - 2012-09-13 01:23:39 UTC
Ashterothi wrote:
This dev blog may be to your interests: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=9129

Lord knows how accurate it still it.


Yeah, that helps a bit, but as you pointed out that was 6 months ago, and eternity in Eve.
I would like to see a definitive statement from CCP saying " OK, in general, expect Navy ships to be better than generic T1's, and T2's to be superior to Navy hulls, and pirate hulls are better than all of them", or whatever order of strength CCP figures makes sense.

It could just as easily be T2's > Pirates > Navy > Generic, or T2's > Navy > Pirates > Generic.

It does not really matter the order, as long as CCP states the general expectation and tries to move towards that.
Right now, there are some serious anomalies, pretty much in all races.
Ensign X
#7 - 2012-09-13 02:19:42 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
It does not really matter the order, as long as CCP states the general expectation and tries to move towards that. Right now, there are some serious anomalies, pretty much in all races.


The only statement they've made so far, and haven't deviated from, is that the re-balancing is moving from the bottom up. Meaning T1 ships across each hull type will be re-balanced first, then their T2 counterparts then, no doubt - though there has not been definitive word of this - the Navy and Pirate variations. I don't think you'll get a better answer at this time unless CCP takes pity on this thread by making an appearance.
Sun Win
#8 - 2012-09-13 03:58:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Sun Win
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
It does not really matter the order, as long as CCP states the general expectation and tries to move towards that. Right now, there are some serious anomalies, pretty much in all races.


They have very explicitly laid out a general expectation:
Better: Pirate > T2 > Navy & T3 > T1 :Worse
Generalized: T3 > T1 & Pirate & Navy >T2 :Specialized

They have set out an order of attack:
T1s starting from smallest to largest, then T2s, then T3s etc.
They gave an update on progress just a few days ago.
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73381

I don't how how you could want any more information on what we can expect.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#9 - 2012-09-13 04:06:47 UTC
Sun Win wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
It does not really matter the order, as long as CCP states the general expectation and tries to move towards that. Right now, there are some serious anomalies, pretty much in all races.


They have very explicitly laid out a general expectation:
Better: Pirate > T2 > Navy & T3 > T1 :Worse
Generalized: T3 > T1 & Pirate & Navy >T2 :Specialized

They have set out an order of attack:
T1s starting from smallest to largest, then T2s, then T3s etc.
They gave an update on progress just a few days ago.
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73381

I don't how how you could want any more information on what we can expect.


I read that thread already.
It does not mention anything other than T1 generic hulls.
TharOkha
0asis Group
#10 - 2012-09-13 04:35:12 UTC
We dont know what specifications will they have. But they will have camo textures for sure Lol

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Zera Kerrigan
The 420th Token
#11 - 2012-09-13 04:43:15 UTC
Yeah, I've heard that they are going to re-do all faction stuff in-game so that they now also shoot pink beams ov Lovin'!

Atleast I would like that. :/
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#12 - 2012-09-13 04:46:36 UTC
Honestly I think disrupting T3's spot at the top of the flowchart currently would suck. As it stands they are the harder ships to produce and more expensive: their abilities when properly kitted out should and do reflect that.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#13 - 2012-09-13 04:54:18 UTC
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Honestly I think disrupting T3's spot at the top of the flowchart currently would suck. As it stands they are the harder ships to produce and more expensive: their abilities when properly kitted out should and do reflect that.


Agreed.

I left T3's out of the conversation originally because I would have thought it as understood that they are the superior cruiser hull.
I don't envision ever seeing a Vigilant outslug a 900 DPS / 100K Proteus.

I am more concerned with the generic T1 hulls outperforming Navy and pirate hulls.
Doddy
Excidium.
#14 - 2012-09-13 09:18:20 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I have scanned through the various dev blogs and threads in the Features forums, but have seen little comment on the Navy or faction frigs and cruisers.

Are they getting some kind of overhaul as well?

From what I see, CCP, you have one nasty balancing act to perform.

You have essentially 4 classes of any hull size: T1, T1 Navy, T1 Faction, and T2 (I am not even going to get started on T3 cruisers).
Perhaps you can tell us what precisely what your vision is regarding the overall hierarchy of the 4 classes.

I know the common answer will be "each has strengths and weaknesses, and a specific role", but I am hoping you can clarify where you see the ships falling in an overarching hierarchy?

I would be most disappointed to find when this is all said and done that basic T1 hulls are superior to T1 Navy hulls.
In many cases that is already true,.


OK, which ones?
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#15 - 2012-09-13 09:20:46 UTC
We all know Pirate ships are so much more Awesome ^_^

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-09-13 10:14:21 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
SmilingVagrant wrote:
Honestly I think disrupting T3's spot at the top of the flowchart currently would suck. As it stands they are the harder ships to produce and more expensive: their abilities when properly kitted out should and do reflect that.


Agreed.

I left T3's out of the conversation originally because I would have thought it as understood that they are the superior cruiser hull.
I don't envision ever seeing a Vigilant outslug a 900 DPS / 100K Proteus.

I am more concerned with the generic T1 hulls outperforming Navy and pirate hulls.


t3 ships have always meant to be 'versatile' but not 'specialised'

t2 ships will/should be better at their specific field than a t3 ship

this isnt currently the case, and i imagine will be dealt with eventually

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#17 - 2012-09-13 11:00:45 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
The linked blog still is accurate.


  • Tech1: base frame of reference for ship hulls. Versatile, generic hulls with good ISK/performance ratio

  • Navy: plain improvement of tech 1 hulls. You get more slots, EHP, fittings when moving to Navy

  • Pirate: usually better than Tech1 and Navy, but with a twist. Twist being that the definition of "better" is up to the Pirate faction you are looking at, as they each have different combat philosophies, which sometimes differ quite a lot from Tech1 hulls (ex: Blood Raiders, Gurista ships)

  • Tech2: plain specialization over Tech1. It should be noted that despite popular belief, Tech2 ships should not necessarily be plain better in all areas next to Tech1 hulls. For instance, Tech1 Attack Frigates + Mobility specialization = Interceptors. Interceptors shouldn't necessarily have more EHP than Tech1 frigates. On the same way, Tech1 Combat Frigates + Resilience / Damage = Assault Frigates. Assault frigates shouldn't be faster than Combat Frigate hulls.

  • Tech3: generalization over Tech1, while being on par with Faction hulls regarding performance. The difficult part is to make them competitive without stepping on other ship roles, like they are right now. Example: Tech3 gang link configurations should give bonuses to more gang link fields than Tech2, but the bonus amount they give should be lesser than Command Ships as they are more specialized. We have some ideas on how to solve Tech3s on the long run - as in make them different instead of plainly nerfing them, but it's still a longshot so, we'll skip individual details for now P


Navy Cruisers need to be looked at yes, but we'll most likely won't have time for them this winter. Giving you 40 revamped hulls to play with keep you busy until the next iteration round though Pirate
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#18 - 2012-09-13 16:11:49 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
The linked blog still is accurate.


  • Tech1: base frame of reference for ship hulls. Versatile, generic hulls with good ISK/performance ratio

  • Navy: plain improvement of tech 1 hulls. You get more slots, EHP, fittings when moving to Navy

  • Pirate: usually better than Tech1 and Navy, but with a twist. Twist being that the definition of "better" is up to the Pirate faction you are looking at, as they each have different combat philosophies, which sometimes differ quite a lot from Tech1 hulls (ex: Blood Raiders, Gurista ships)

  • Tech2: plain specialization over Tech1. It should be noted that despite popular belief, Tech2 ships should not necessarily be plain better in all areas next to Tech1 hulls. For instance, Tech1 Attack Frigates + Mobility specialization = Interceptors. Interceptors shouldn't necessarily have more EHP than Tech1 frigates. On the same way, Tech1 Combat Frigates + Resilience / Damage = Assault Frigates. Assault frigates shouldn't be faster than Combat Frigate hulls.

  • Tech3: generalization over Tech1, while being on par with Faction hulls regarding performance. The difficult part is to make them competitive without stepping on other ship roles, like they are right now. Example: Tech3 gang link configurations should give bonuses to more gang link fields than Tech2, but the bonus amount they give should be lesser than Command Ships as they are more specialized. We have some ideas on how to solve Tech3s on the long run - as in make them different instead of plainly nerfing them, but it's still a longshot so, we'll skip individual details for now P


Navy Cruisers need to be looked at yes, but we'll most likely won't have time for them this winter. Giving you 40 revamped hulls to play with keep you busy until the next iteration round though Pirate


Thanks for the update. That does clarify things for me quite a bit.
But I do have one concern.

If I reading this properly, T2 cruiser hulls should fill a specialized role better than any hull in the same weight class.
Makes perfect sense.
The T2 Recons, Heavy Interdictors, and Logistics do perform the role better than any other hull.

But the HAC and Navy hulls I am concerned with. I just don't see how you are going to be able to differentiate the hull specs enough to justify from a cost / benefit perspective the Navy and T2 HAC's if some of the the generic T1's are getting a buff. I am especially concerned with the Navy hulls. People will still mission / explore in an Ishtar, but I just don't see a place for something like a Navy Vexor or Navy Omen if the T1 hulls are getting a buff / differentiation.

Please, please. This time, listen to the feedback from the Sisi players when these ships are eventually tested. Othwerwise, you will likely doom one of the hulls to obsolescence, likely the Navy hulls.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-09-13 19:11:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinigr Shadowsong
I like new scheme of different techs of ships but what bothers me is how you distinguish combat/attack cruiser role for specialization. Example of those lines:
Omen --> Navy Omen --> Zealot --> Legion
Caracal --> Navy Caracal --> Cerberus --> Tengu
It's just a straight up progression, how would you make Zealot specialised enough to feel different from Omen or Navy Omen without simply giving more EHP/DPS? How would you ensure that Legion fitted for same role is not overpowered considering it's price and SP loss. Same with oher races. Same with oher races.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-09-13 19:13:06 UTC
double post
12Next page