These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#401 - 2012-11-03 17:24:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:
I'm willing to be corrected, but would still argue that range isn't an issue on a Celestis. It would benefit more from a different bonus than the Damp optimal one. Particularly noting that fitting 2 x PGDs gets effectively the same range as the bonused Celestis, and you're not really able to make use of any range beyond that. I mean if you look back at my fit, at max targeting range on that Celestis you're only at Optimal+1/2 Falloff. With the optimal bonus with 1 PGD fitted the optimal of damps (98Km) exceeds the targeting range on a Celestis without a Sig Amp or SeBo (94Km). But - realistically - increasing your optimal combat range from 85 Km ish to 100 Km ish doesn't really increase your survivability. Particularly when you can already operate at 100km with only a slightly reduced effectiveness.

My issue is that the optimal range bonus doesn't allow it to do anything it can't do already. I mean, I get that CCP wants the Celestis to be long ranged and I agree: but would much rather see a Drone bonus that allows it to make use of its decent drone bay from a long range.

This range could be useful in large fleet where range is your only defense. With greater range, you can then stay behind your lines, out of ennemy range, and still damp some important targets. Then, 100-150km is more the range you should aim for IMO, and that is the range a range bonus would allow.

Fozzy clearly said the Celestis would be fleet oriented, hence the range bonus. I think it's as much a way of making it better for fleet than a way to prevent it to be too powerful at smaller scales and shorter ranges.

PS : I'll have to check this damp falloff mecanic someday.
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#402 - 2012-11-03 18:06:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kai'rae Saarkus
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

This range could be useful in large fleet where range is your only defense. With greater range, you can then stay behind your lines, out of ennemy range, and still damp some important targets. Then, 100-150km is more the range you should aim for IMO, and that is the range a range bonus would allow.

Fozzy clearly said the Celestis would be fleet oriented, hence the range bonus. I think it's as much a way of making it better for fleet than a way to prevent it to be too powerful at smaller scales and shorter ranges.


The only ships that will scare it @ 80km will be Tier3s and BSs. LR Cruisers (Munnin, Eagle, Cerb) will be able to hurt it, but won't have the Alpha to blap it (if it is well set up) and they'll will need to waste a lot of their DPS if they choose to shoot at something that far away (well Cerb won't.... but LOL DPS).

@ 100 km, the only ships that will scare it will be Tier3s and BSs.... so no change.

My standard plan would be to warp in @ 70Km on the enemy blob. This gives you 50Km overlap to Damp their Logis, puts you out of range of most DPS (ie. anything with less range than a Pulse Oracle), and puts you within Drone range. Your DPS ships should be at 50-70Km. Right now on TQ, Damps are (barely) effective if used this way. The issue with this plan, is you are 70Km away from the fight with 5 x Med Drones sitting wasted in your drone bay: it'll take them about 30 secs to make that distance.... it'll even take warriors >10 secs.

The reason Damps aren't used on TQ (much) is only partly because CCP broke the modules; the other part is the ships. Lachs and Zus are of greater benefit to a gang in a pointing role (and because they're shield tanked... this tends to be mutually exclusive with damping); Celestis are crap; Merlins are a better damping ship than Maulus' and Keres' suffer from EAF syndrome.

So, to "fix" damps they need to do 3 things:

Fix the modules (I think they've achieved this with the [Winter] proposals).

Fix the ships (I think the 7.5% Bonus, the new Maulus and Celestis are good signs).

Improve armour tanking (Damping ships need to be mobile - to keep range - but are designed to be armour tankers: this will continue to compromise them until it's fixed).

Quote:
PS : I'll have to check this damp falloff mecanic someday.


The other question I've got about Damps is: do they stack with SeBos? I think that at one point they did... not certain if they do now or not.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#403 - 2012-11-03 18:28:19 UTC
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:
Quote:
PS : I'll have to check this damp falloff mecanic someday.


The other question I've got about Damps is: do they stack with SeBos? I think that at one point they did... not certain if they do now or not.

What do you mean by "stacking" ? As far as I know, stacking penalty apply on things with the same effect. Here, damps have a reverse effect of SeBo. Each type should have it's own stacking pile. And my fitting tool agree with me.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#404 - 2012-11-03 19:58:30 UTC
Saede Riordan wrote:
I think TPs will need to get buffed before the Bellicose will really shine. If TPs outright increased applied damage, it would put it in line with the Arbitrator, which can use its utility highs to fit neuts and turn off an opponents tank.

Target Painters are not in need a buff, a fact evidenced by their high usage by ships that do not have a bonus for them. I think that a 7.5% per level skill bonus is not enough because nobody flies the ships that do target painter boosts, or maybe it's just because those ships don't have enough tank. Either way, statistically speaking, it is the target painter ships, and not the target painters, that need the buffing. But I honestly think a 10% per level skill bonus is reasonable, and I don't think 15% would be ridiculous at all.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#405 - 2012-11-04 04:06:09 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:
Quote:
PS : I'll have to check this damp falloff mecanic someday.


The other question I've got about Damps is: do they stack with SeBos? I think that at one point they did... not certain if they do now or not.

What do you mean by "stacking" ? As far as I know, stacking penalty apply on things with the same effect. Here, damps have a reverse effect of SeBo. Each type should have it's own stacking pile. And my fitting tool agree with me.


Copied from the RSD. (I am well aware that you can't actually trust the explanation on modules to be accurate).
"Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."

SeBos and RSDs affect the same attribute on the target vessel. When I tested them years ago the only way to explain the numbers we were getting (below what we expected on sensor boosted ships) was that SeBos and RSDs stacked with each other. I don't know if this is true anymore; or if it was true for any length of time then.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#406 - 2012-11-04 13:12:42 UTC
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:
"Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized."

It could be argued that the two modules affect a different attribute. A sensor booster affects YOUR targeting range and scan resolution, while a sensor dampener affects YOUR TARGET'S targeting range and scan resolution. But I'd like to see it worded more clearly.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#407 - 2012-11-05 20:24:36 UTC
Quick note, we're extending the RSD range bonus on the Celestis to include both optimal and falloff.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
fukier
Gallente Federation
#408 - 2012-11-05 20:44:36 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Quick note, we're extending the RSD range bonus on the Celestis to include both optimal and falloff.


OMG
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#409 - 2012-11-05 21:17:27 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Quick note, we're extending the RSD range bonus on the Celestis to include both optimal and falloff.


Sensor damps make sense in sniping fleets. Sadly, since on grid scanning got that boost, there are no more sniping fleets to use it with. ECM will still be king, TD comes in a close second, Target painters are marginaly useful, which leaves SD filling a role that no one uses anymore, and I won't even go into the fact that you need 2 SDs to effectivly shut down a single ship.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
fukier
Gallente Federation
#410 - 2012-11-05 21:36:10 UTC  |  Edited by: fukier
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Quick note, we're extending the RSD range bonus on the Celestis to include both optimal and falloff.


Sensor damps make sense in sniping fleets. Sadly, since on grid scanning got that boost, there are no more sniping fleets to use it with. ECM will still be king, TD comes in a close second, Target painters are marginaly useful, which leaves SD filling a role that no one uses anymore, and I won't even go into the fact that you need 2 SDs to effectivly shut down a single ship.



81 km optimal range and 135 km falloff... keep in mind that falloff is only usefull up to 50% so 135/2= 67.5km and 81+67.5= 148.5km (which is just under warp range)

though i do agree something needs to be done about on grid warping...

the celestis can now do one of two jobs...

1. shut down enemy snippers

2. work with BB to mess with Logi ships...

not bad if you ask me...
Highs:
Cyno Gen
the other two what ever you want (claoks or 2 small guns or neuts)

5 mids?

10 mn mwd, Sensor Booster optimal range script, 3 RSD

lows?
800 or 1600 plate (which ever fits)
dcu II
ex hardner II
2 eanm II

rigs:
2 inverted signal field projectors

or one inverted signal field projector and two trimarks

drones
5 warrior II
5 ecm 300

with an offgrid proteus each RSD will reduce either optimal target range or scan resolution by up to 73.5%
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#411 - 2012-11-06 00:46:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
fukier wrote:
though i do agree something needs to be done about on grid warping...
I vote frigates and destroyers can make warps as short as 100km, and battleships can't warp less than 200km, and capital ships can't warp less than 300km.
Kai'rae Saarkus is correct, this would be a bad idea.

And this update should happen at the same time they make ship bumping more dependent on the ship's mass, so that titans don't get bumped out of POS bubbles, especially since they can't warp back in after this.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#412 - 2012-11-06 08:42:14 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
fukier wrote:
though i do agree something needs to be done about on grid warping...
I vote frigates and destroyers can make warps as short as 100km, and battleships can't warp less than 200km, and capital ships can't warp less than 300km.

And this update should happen at the same time they make ship bumping more dependent on the ship's mass, so that titans don't get bumped out of POS bubbles, especially since they can't warp back in after this.


No. That breaks LR medium sized gangs: kill 1 ship in the enemy gang, warp all you frigs to the wreck, tackle all the things; and it doesn't actually fix the alledged problem of "On Grid Warping Problem" countering sniping at >150Km. Also, it's not particularly difficult to get a warp-in on fleets less than 150Km away from you.

In any event, Very LR sniping (>150Km) sucked. Getting rid of it has been a major improvement in game play. It brought us AHACs, FoxCats, Alphafleets, firewall BSs, DasBoots, Drake Blobs instead of being limited to trading Fleet BSs at 200 Km.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#413 - 2012-11-06 09:14:46 UTC
Kai'rae Saarkus wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Are you sure about this chance based falloff mecanic ? I always thought falloff only reduced EWAR effectiveness (ie at opti+falloff, ewar effect is halfed, but always hit).


The issue is EWAR has to be amongst the least well documented parts of Eve. So I don't know.


Falloff for ewar works in exactly the same fashion as it does for guns - it gives them a "to-hit" chance. You don't see your guns' damage modifier changing instead, do you?
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#414 - 2012-11-06 10:58:17 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Falloff for ewar works in exactly the same fashion as it does for guns - it gives them a "to-hit" chance. You don't see your guns' damage modifier changing instead, do you?

Yes you do : hit quality.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#415 - 2012-11-06 11:21:46 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Falloff for ewar works in exactly the same fashion as it does for guns - it gives them a "to-hit" chance. You don't see your guns' damage modifier changing instead, do you?

Yes you do : hit quality.


Lol Well yes. Er. I was trying to say that ewar doesn't have a hit quality, so it must work by a straight hit/miss dynamic.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#416 - 2012-11-06 11:35:27 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:

Lol Well yes. Er. I was trying to say that ewar doesn't have a hit quality, so it must work by a straight hit/miss dynamic.

;-)
While being chance based, if you only consider dps, falloff do decrease turret effectiveness. Considering you have sometimes many turrets, the chance thing is already alleviated almost to an average ; the spread between low and high hit quality is reduced.

EWAR is not chance based at its core, so I though the falloff would not change this. This is interesting though. If it's the same for ECM, that mean that ECM in falloff have two rolls of dice, though the ECM strength is always the same whatever the range. And that mean that a range dampener will damp for full effect in falloff but the target will have some windows to lock you.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#417 - 2012-11-06 11:47:47 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:

Lol Well yes. Er. I was trying to say that ewar doesn't have a hit quality, so it must work by a straight hit/miss dynamic.

;-)
While being chance based, if you only consider dps, falloff do decrease turret effectiveness. Considering you have sometimes many turrets, the chance thing is already alleviated almost to an average ; the spread between low and high hit quality is reduced.

EWAR is not chance based at its core, so I though the falloff would not change this. This is interesting though. If it's the same for ECM, that mean that ECM in falloff have two rolls of dice, though the ECM strength is always the same whatever the range. And that mean that a range dampener will damp for full effect in falloff but the target will have some windows to lock you.


EWAR (apart for ECM ofc) isn't chance based, but falloff is. So for TDs, painters and RSDs in falloff, you will either hit the target for full effect, or miss it altogether, because you're in falloff. It's a while since I paid attention to ewaring something at such long range to get noticeable falloff, but I'd be very surprised if it had changed in the last few years.

But for ECM, then there's zero mathematical difference in jam chance between ECM operating in falloff with a straight hit/miss chance, and ECM that always hits in falloff but with its strength reduced - the two are indistinguishable in terms of final jam chance.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#418 - 2012-11-06 15:08:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Sean Parisi
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Blackbird:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength
10% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal range and falloff
Slot layout: 4 H, 6 M, 3 L (+1), 3 turrets, 3 launchers
Fittings: 525 PWG, 425 CPU (+25)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400(-6) / 1200(+145) / 1400(+267)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1250(+187.5) / 445s(+63.75s) / 2.8 (+0.02)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 190(+9) / 0.48(+0.025) / 13190000 / 5.9s (+0.3)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10(+10) / 10(+10)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+10) / 230 / 8
Sensor strength: 20 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 150
Cargo capacity: 305


Celestis:
Cruiser skill bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener effectiveness
10% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener optimal range and falloff
Slot layout: 3 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L (+2), 3 turrets, 3 launchers (+1)
Fittings: 575 PWG, 375 CPU (+50)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1200(+27) / 1300(+11) / 1700(+411)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 1300(+175) / 463s(+63s) / 2.8 (-0.01)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+29) / 0.505(-0.06) / 12070000 / 5.7s (+0.7)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+10)/ 50(+10)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km(+10) / 290(+2) / 8(+2)
Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 135
Cargo capacity: 320



I am really enjoying these changes quite a bit. For the Blackbird the extra low slot will either allow it to have more tank (damage control, etc) or it will allow us to fit an addition modifying mod which will allow it to deal with the sensor increase bonus majority of ships are getting throughout this patch.

In regards to the Celestis I will miss its "Surprise" factor as a blaster / utility boat. But I prefer it in its dedicated E-War role as it will get far more use. I have also had a fascination with attempting to have a full out sensor dampening fleet which in small scale engagements can lock down someone permanently. With the heavy low slots I can see it being a fast kiting E-War platform, HEAVY platform with quite a bit of staying power or even an outright ECM counter - As it will be able to dedicate one of its slots towards something such as ECCM. It will also have the ability to kill orbiting close frigates with its launchers.

Essentially I think it fulfills the role of a heavy E-War platform with a lot of staying power.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#419 - 2012-11-06 15:10:14 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
;-)
While being chance based, if you only consider dps, falloff do decrease turret effectiveness. Considering you have sometimes many turrets, the chance thing is already alleviated almost to an average ; the spread between low and high hit quality is reduced.

EWAR is not chance based at its core, so I though the falloff would not change this. This is interesting though. If it's the same for ECM, that mean that ECM in falloff have two rolls of dice, though the ECM strength is always the same whatever the range. And that mean that a range dampener will damp for full effect in falloff but the target will have some windows to lock you.
He's right, and all that didn't need to be said. You're just picking bones where you could be contributing to the topic at hand.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#420 - 2012-11-06 21:07:22 UTC
I have tried an E-War Celestis Setup. Heavily tanked, (23589 EHP) 4 dampeners. It has been able to damp down majority of ships to 12km. For a 2 vs 1 situation this ship could be devastating if focused on one ship. Literally keeping its lock range just above scramble range but firmly within the 15km range. Though I am thinking I may try to reformat it for a more kitey fit. The cap is stable running the dampeners without the microwarp drive on. Otherwise it has a cap rate of 1 minute.

For me atleast this is looking like it may make for a good support ship for small gang warfare.