These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post
Author
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#21 - 2012-09-13 19:37:16 UTC
Why is the Arbitrator the only one that cannot fill out its highs with offensive weaponry .. surely you can add a gun slot without breaking anything.

eWar boats survive (and kill) on the basis of being able to surprise an enemy, if each and every fit is predictable they'll be relegated to being pure support craft (mostly).
Same goes for every hull really (within reason obviously), it is fine to have roles to make the various hulls unique, but there has to be the option of going outside the box to bend an enemy over or it will be another 8 years of optimized cookie cutters with "off" hulls only seeing action when there are no more cookies in the jar.

Ex: Pilgrim. You expect it to field neuts, yes? Ever met the gun wielding brawler that evolved from a ratting fit .. scary **** that. Or how about the brawler Rook, everyone burns at the ECM .. one of the few hulls in Eve that is both the bait and the hook rolled into one Smile

PS: I take it you are going to reign the ASB's in, otherwise you might want to look at tweaking the Bellicose's fittings to disallow the most obvious abuses of that module. The Belli is already scary as hell and a missile config like that will be untouchable by a majority of 'equal' options.
Alara IonStorm
#22 - 2012-09-13 19:40:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Suggestion. I think you should do away with the half brawler idea and give both Cruisers and the Frigates, Combat and Secondary Ewar Bonuses.
AlexHalstead
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-09-13 19:40:23 UTC
Karmu Ivanostrov wrote:
AlexHalstead wrote:
I still have to ask, isn't there any other bonus that suit the disruption role better than the Launcher ROF for Bell?


As stated, Bell and Arbitrator are being tailored for smaller gangs in which their dps contribution is important. Thats why you see 1 dps and 1 EW bonus, while Blackbird and Celestis have 2 EW bonuses and no dps bonus
Yes but I did pointed out in a post that the Arbitrator's "DPS", or 2nd, bonus also benefit OTHER drones like the EWAR drones. Bell's 2nd bonus benefit only specifically a weapon system.
Karmu Ivanostrov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-09-13 19:44:17 UTC
AlexHalstead wrote:
Karmu Ivanostrov wrote:
AlexHalstead wrote:
I still have to ask, isn't there any other bonus that suit the disruption role better than the Launcher ROF for Bell?


As stated, Bell and Arbitrator are being tailored for smaller gangs in which their dps contribution is important. Thats why you see 1 dps and 1 EW bonus, while Blackbird and Celestis have 2 EW bonuses and no dps bonus
Yes but I did pointed out in a post that the Arbitrator's "DPS", or 2nd, bonus also benefit OTHER drones like the EWAR drones. Bell's 2nd bonus benefit only specifically a weapon system.


Noted

10% bonus to drone hitpoints, damage and mining yield
I only see damage there but I have never tested if it affected ewar drones.
Martin0
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#25 - 2012-09-13 19:47:12 UTC
YES thank you!
The Celestis now have a purpose.
Now please, buff damps Lol
Aaron Greil
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-09-13 20:03:26 UTC
Not sure how I feel about the bellicose having a full drone bay. Two ewar ships, okay, but three reeks of too much homogenization. Bring the bellicose down, at least one medium drone. The balance team also added tons of drones to frigate hulls, it feels like gallente's specialization is being entirely eclipsed. The vexor, with only 75 bw (which most people only use a flight of mediums anyway) loses its advantage in the cruiser realm. A similar thing is true with the thorax.

Also, the arbitrator looks awesome, but there was talk of adding at least a taste of missile based ships in the tech 1 amarr lineup. I was waiting for it with frigates, but it never came. Adding one or two missile hardpoints to the arbitrator without increasing fitting would be a welcome stepping stone for the curse, damnation, and sacrilege. Also, as it stands, it seems the bellicose can clearly out dps the arbitrator without a huge loss of versatility.

In regards to the other two, I heard rumors that dampening will be buffed, and hearsay that ECM will be nerfed. I think both of these things need to happen in order to bring balance between the blackbird and the celestis.

Also, drones on the blackbird? not a fan. The blackbird is pretty powerful already due to the nature of ECM. Unless there is some nerfbat coming to ECM I think the blackbird is a little much. Specifically the targeting range. Thats absurd. I was expecting a targeting nerf on the blackbird, actually, not a buff.

The speed boost is very welcome.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#27 - 2012-09-13 20:04:41 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
In exactly what way is a 542 dps Belicose with 0 disrupting effects a disruption cruiser?

It now does around 80 more dps than a 5% per leve damagel maller would do with 3 HS based on those proposed changes and about 31 more dps than the current 5 pulse 3 HS omen does. When does thinking ever come in to the picture at CCP?

Arbitrator, at least it's a "disruption cruiser" and does moderate dps. Belicose... i mean really?

And like several others have said, WTF do drones seem to be the primary balance tool for you guys when it completely goes out of character based on game lore. We've already had Developers say that 10% of server load during fights is drones.... want to make it even worse?
Hoarr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#28 - 2012-09-13 20:06:41 UTC
Damps are fine, they do their job.

Fozzie, really liking what I'm seeing so far. That arbitrator's going to be a bastard of a ship, and the bellicose looks like it's going to be a fun little brawler.

Now the fun part starts, BRING ON THE ATTACK SHIPS.
Karmu Ivanostrov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-09-13 20:09:18 UTC
Aaron Greil wrote:
Also, the arbitrator looks awesome, but there was talk of adding at least a taste of missile based ships in the tech 1 amarr lineup. I was waiting for it with frigates, but it never came. Adding one or two missile hardpoints to the arbitrator without increasing fitting would be a welcome stepping stone for the curse, damnation, and sacrilege. Also, as it stands, it seems the bellicose can clearly out dps the arbitrator without a huge loss of versatility.


The idea of giving Amarr T1 missiles seems to have been scrubed in favor of drones (so you have Caldari and Minnie with missiles and Gallente and Amarr with drones)

I'd advise you to go listen Bringing Solo Back's 20th episode in which CCP Fozzie was a guest. He had a really cool chat with Kil2 and Kovorix about some possible upcoming changes that are in the development pipeline (by the sounds of it, still in pre production tough)
LtCol Laurentius
The Imperial Sardaukar
#30 - 2012-09-13 20:09:55 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
Looks good and in line with the previosuly stated design goals. Some questions though:
- Why does the Arby retain its mining bonus to drones?

We didn't see any reason to remove it.



Well, after the proposed changes to the Osprey and Schyte, it will be the only T1 cruiser left with a mining bonus. I just thought you guys had decided to use ORE ships as the bonused mining ships all the way. But its not a big deal obvioulsy.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#31 - 2012-09-13 20:13:26 UTC
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
Looks good and in line with the previosuly stated design goals. Some questions though:
- Why does the Arby retain its mining bonus to drones?

We didn't see any reason to remove it.



Well, after the proposed changes to the Osprey and Schyte, it will be the only T1 cruiser left with a mining bonus. I just thought you guys had decided to use ORE ships as the bonused mining ships all the way. But its not a big deal obvioulsy.


Current plan is for the drone ships to keep their mining drone bonuses, as they're really a different thing entirely compared to the actual mining cruisers.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

LtCol Laurentius
The Imperial Sardaukar
#32 - 2012-09-13 20:17:07 UTC  |  Edited by: LtCol Laurentius
Aaron Greil wrote:


Also, drones on the blackbird? not a fan. The blackbird is pretty powerful already due to the nature of ECM. Unless there is some nerfbat coming to ECM I think the blackbird is a little much. Specifically the targeting range. Thats absurd. I was expecting a targeting nerf on the blackbird, actually, not a buff.


2 light drones on the BB isnt a big deal. If flown right - that is utilizing its range - their best use is probably gonna be a couple of light armor maintenace bots to repair friendlies between fights, or a couple of EC-300 for self defence purposes.

As for the targeting range, it is in line with what the Blackbird is: The longest range EW cruiser in the game. And frankly, its the only way to survive with one as it is always primaried.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-09-13 20:20:20 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
Looks good and in line with the previosuly stated design goals. Some questions though:
- Why does the Arby retain its mining bonus to drones?

We didn't see any reason to remove it.



Well, after the proposed changes to the Osprey and Schyte, it will be the only T1 cruiser left with a mining bonus. I just thought you guys had decided to use ORE ships as the bonused mining ships all the way. But its not a big deal obvioulsy.


Current plan is for the drone ships to keep their mining drone bonuses, as they're really a different thing entirely compared to the actual mining cruisers.

Will this apply to all drone ships with a damage bonus, will I be able to make a mining Dominix some day :-)

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#34 - 2012-09-13 20:23:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
You really need to either adjust damps to have a bit more inherent usefulness or significantly increase that bonus (if you want to avoid the old situation of “damps on everything”).

I haven't done the all the maths for where it needs to be but really, what you should be aiming at is that with a reasonable fit and without any special bonuses (command ships etc.), and after stacking penalties, a Celestis that concentrates all of its disruption on a single ships should basically have the same effect as the equivalent Blackbird would do the the same ship… which would pretty much entail damping any normal ship down to, oh, 2km lock range or so.

…so keep bumping those bonuses up, because you're not there yet.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#35 - 2012-09-13 20:25:12 UTC
Tippia wrote:
You really need to either adjust damps to have a bit more inherent usefulness or significantly increase that bonus (if you want to avoid the old situation of “damps on everything”).

I haven't done the all the maths for where it needs to be but really, what you should be aiming at is that with a reasonable fit and without any special bonuses (command ships etc.), and after stacking penalties, a Celestis that concentrates all of its disruption on a single ships should do pretty much the same thing as the equivalent Blackbird would do the the same ship… which would pretty much entail damping any normal ship down to, oh, 2km lock range or so.

…so keep bumping those bonuses up, because you're not there yet.


I'd rather have a Blackbird that concentrates all its jammers on one ship be closer in power to the Celestis than the other way around, however yeah there is more that needs to be done with damps.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2012-09-13 20:26:31 UTC  |  Edited by: MotherMoon
CCP Fozzie wrote:
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
Looks good and in line with the previosuly stated design goals. Some questions though:
- Why does the Arby retain its mining bonus to drones?

We didn't see any reason to remove it.



Well, after the proposed changes to the Osprey and Schyte, it will be the only T1 cruiser left with a mining bonus. I just thought you guys had decided to use ORE ships as the bonused mining ships all the way. But its not a big deal obvioulsy.


Current plan is for the drone ships to keep their mining drone bonuses, as they're really a different thing entirely compared to the actual mining cruisers.


wat? have you lost it? maybe i don't understand , are you gving a non ore ship a random never to be used drone bonus to mining?

Also I'll say it again, nerf damps on everything and give the damp ships a 400% increase to damp effectivness. or something. You know how T2 battleships are the only ones with 90% webs? or how the web bonus ships get 300% bonus to web range almost turning them into a new weapon?

please, make it so damps are just meh, unless put on a dampening ship.

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

Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-09-13 20:30:35 UTC
Fozzie - during your interview for kil2's podcast, you mentioned that you guys use modified versions of pyfa when tweaking and testing these new ships. Would it be possible to make those modified versions available when you post threads like this so we can play with the proposed new changes in a fitting program rather than just looking at text stats or fiddling with homebrew fitting tools? It'd make it a lot easier to form a reasonable opinion of their strengths and weaknesses...
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#38 - 2012-09-13 20:34:53 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
Fozzie - during your interview for kil2's podcast, you mentioned that you guys use modified versions of pyfa when tweaking and testing these new ships. Would it be possible to make those modified versions available when you post threads like this so we can play with the proposed new changes in a fitting program rather than just looking at text stats or fiddling with homebrew fitting tools? It'd make it a lot easier to form a reasonable opinion of their strengths and weaknesses...


It's something we'd like to do someday, but at the moment the database file our script spits out includes a lot of unreleased stuff from our internal test server, including a bunch of stuff that will likely never see release. Getting the script to a point where it can only include the stuff we want to announce is a task for when we have a bit more free time.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Karmu Ivanostrov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#39 - 2012-09-13 20:36:20 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
Fozzie - during your interview for kil2's podcast, you mentioned that you guys use modified versions of pyfa when tweaking and testing these new ships. Would it be possible to make those modified versions available when you post threads like this so we can play with the proposed new changes in a fitting program rather than just looking at text stats or fiddling with homebrew fitting tools? It'd make it a lot easier to form a reasonable opinion of their strengths and weaknesses...


Not to mention unthought of/extreme fits cropping up and being weighted faster
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#40 - 2012-09-13 20:41:38 UTC
still waiting to hear how the belicose proposal makes sense.