These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Don’t make the Ferox redundant please

Author
Renier Gaden
Immortal Guides
#1 - 2012-11-27 16:35:47 UTC
Quote:
Ferox: we would like to reinforce the sniping nature of this ship, most likely by replacing the shield resistance bonus with a hybrid damage bonus. Nothing is set in stone yet, as we need to find ways to ensure it doesn’t compete with the Naga.

I don’t see how you can make the Ferox (currently a good brawler) into a good sniper that does not compete with the Naga. I like the Ferox as a brawler better. Just give is another Mid slot and it will be fine. Caldari does not need 3 sniping Battlecruisers.

The Naga is a very good long range sniper.
The Drake is a versatile mid range ship.
Let the Ferox be a short range blaster ship. Let it keep its tanking bonus. Give it more speed than the Drake so it can control range (because range matters to gun boats more than missile boats).

If you want to change a bonus, change the range bonus to a damage bonus.

Many Caldari pilots want a viable gunboat. The glass cannon Naga is great for Sniping, but we still need a brawler we can roam with to handle fights on gates. Yes, the Drake will do the job, it can handle every role, but it is not a gunboat.

Basically a sniping Ferox is redundant, is not needed, and continues to force Caldari pilots to fly the Drake.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#2 - 2012-11-27 17:03:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
I agree the ferox is a great brawler a shield option that can tank well instead of brutix armour reps or naga/talos both weak tanks and the talos gets used more as a heavy vaga anyway.

this way the ferox actually has a role making it a sniper will do the opposite there is still the eagle to use as a rail sniper anyway it needs some love focus it on that altough an extra mid would be wrong .. drake tank... a low might be better to nano it.
Although i would prefer all HACS to have a vaga style focus on them osprey navy issue will soon have its role overtaken by the caracal.
Since HICS are the T2 combat cruisers.

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

tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
#3 - 2012-11-27 17:14:35 UTC
the only issue with a caldari brawler is that brawling flies in the face of all things combat caldari: long range engagements. I do agree that the ferox currently is used as a gate brawler, though its intention was a mid-long range passive tanky sniper. Something that can pre-tier 3 bcs tackle most snipers and come out on top. However, that role has been partially taken by the Naga, which has range but no tank.

To keep it a sniper, it will need a LARGE damage bonus, something I'm sure CCP won't allow.

Where the science gets done

Renier Gaden
Immortal Guides
#4 - 2012-11-27 20:14:27 UTC
Brawling may not be Caldari’s preferred fighting style, but even they should concede that there is a need for a shield tanked brawler for breaking gate camps and such. Also, the Basilisk is best suited to support a shield brawler fleet, as it is not fast enough to run with nano fleets.

As far as slot layout, I would prefer an extra Mid to fit a Web as well as Prop, Point, and tank. Yes the layout would be the same as the Drake, but Hybrid turrets, even more than any other turret types due to extreme range restrictions, create a contrast between the play styles of guns versus missiles. The layout may be the same but flying a Ferox would feel completely different than flying a Drake.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#5 - 2012-11-27 21:06:55 UTC
In all honesty, they could just leave it with its current bonuses and give it the extra slot its due. (Ferox has 16 slots and BCs are getting 17 across the board.)
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#6 - 2012-11-27 21:56:44 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
In all honesty, they could just leave it with its current bonuses and give it the extra slot its due. (Ferox has 16 slots and BCs are getting 17 across the board.)


Nah a ferox with the dmg bonus will get another 200 dps or so plus it only has 6 turrets instead of 7 so it could end up with about 900dps a more fleet friendly brutix.

rather than the 600 dps ish it gets now.
They will prob add a low slot to it i would think as the drake tank is too much with 6 meds and resis bonus.

And since the vulture will work off the ferox we want the vulture to get 2 dmg bonus like the astarte has and then maybe add some falloff bonus or tracking.

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

Renier Gaden
Immortal Guides
#7 - 2012-11-28 14:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Renier Gaden
If they add a low slot and remove the resistance bonus, then people will start armour tanking it, and that hardly follows Caldari doctrine either. Then we can call the Ferox the Caldari Hurricane.

I would not object to keeping the current bonuses and adding a High Slot + Turret hard point (or two).
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-11-28 15:42:33 UTC
Depends.
There is the "lore doctrine" and then the "game doctrine". I'm not sure which one is actually pursued. I doubt it's the Caldari-lore one. In this case, it's better to go for the sake of Ferox' usability.

Got to make up your mind though. Sometimes I have the feeling everybody just wants some 20/20/20 slot layout :D.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

Renier Gaden
Immortal Guides
#9 - 2012-11-28 16:32:31 UTC
Vayn Baxtor wrote:
Depends.
There is the "lore doctrine" and then the "game doctrine". I'm not sure which one is actually pursued. I doubt it's the Caldari-lore one. In this case, it's better to go for the sake of Ferox' usability.

Got to make up your mind though. Sometimes I have the feeling everybody just wants some 20/20/20 slot layout :D.


Their current plan is to make the Ferox into a better sniper ship fits “lore doctrine”, but since it has medium turrets it will be outperformed by the Naga at long range and outperformed by the Drake (even after the missile nerf) at mid range. Without the tanking bonus it would be too fragile to use at short range. So their current plan would make it less useful than it is now.

I would prefer that they follow “game doctrine” and realize that the Ferox has a niche currently, even if it is a niche it was not intended for, and optimize it for that role as a passive shield tanked brawler. It would make a very good shield fleet ship for fighting on gates and works well as heavy tackle, although an extra mid for a Web would make it better for heavy tackle.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#10 - 2012-11-28 16:40:29 UTC
5 mids are enough for a ferox:
web
point
mwd
LSE
invul

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

Renier Gaden
Immortal Guides
#11 - 2012-11-28 17:08:57 UTC
The options I prefer, in order of preference, for balancing the Ferox are as follows:

Option 1: Add a mid slot (for more utility), make it faster, keep bonuses the same.
Option 2: Add a High slot and a turret hard point, make it faster, keep bonuses the same.
Option 3: Add a low slot, make it faster, change the range bonus to a damage bonus.

Option 1 makes the Ferox better at being heavy tackle without losing the ability to fit rails and work as a sniper.

Option 2 makes the Ferox a harder hitting brawler, and a harder hitting mid range sniper.

Option 3 makes the Ferox a much harder hitting brawler.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#12 - 2012-11-28 17:14:09 UTC
Renier Gaden wrote:
The options I prefer, in order of preference, for balancing the Ferox are as follows:

Option 1: Add a mid slot (for more utility), make it faster, keep bonuses the same.
Option 2: Add a High slot and a turret hard point, make it faster, keep bonuses the same.
Option 3: Add a low slot, make it faster, change the range bonus to a damage bonus.



i may be wrong but, i think he wants it to be faster

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#13 - 2012-11-28 17:18:47 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Renier Gaden wrote:
The options I prefer, in order of preference, for balancing the Ferox are as follows:

Option 1: Add a mid slot (for more utility), make it faster, keep bonuses the same.
Option 2: Add a High slot and a turret hard point, make it faster, keep bonuses the same.
Option 3: Add a low slot, make it faster, change the range bonus to a damage bonus.



i may be wrong but, i think he wants it to be faster


:) Just a bit ..... but he may be disappointed like i was with the moa's slowness but option 3 along with a extra turret slot instead of all those useless launcher slots.

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

Renier Gaden
Immortal Guides
#14 - 2012-11-28 18:44:21 UTC
Yes, I would like it to be a bit faster in order to get into range to use Blasters. It was originally intended to use rail guns, which have enough range that speed was not needed. It is currently the same speed as the Drake. The Drake can be standing still and still hit anything out to 60 Km or so, so it does not need speed, but if the Ferox is using Blasters, then the Ferox needs a bit more speed.

An increase from 140 m/sec to 160 m/s would be a big help and it would still be slower than the Hurricane and Cyclone.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#15 - 2012-11-28 18:46:26 UTC
Renier Gaden wrote:
Yes, I would like it to be a bit faster in order to get into range to use Blasters. It was originally intended to use rail guns, which have enough range that speed was not needed. It is currently the same speed as the Drake. The Drake can be standing still and still hit anything out to 60 Km or so, so it does not need speed, but if the Ferox is using Blasters, then the Ferox needs a bit more speed.

An increase from 140 m/sec to 160 m/s would be a big help and it would still be slower than the Hurricane and Cyclone.


The problem atm with bc's is their mass is too similar to combat cruisers so its more a case of how much mass they add to each ship.

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

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-11-28 19:14:56 UTC
One thing that I feel is going unnoticed is that in making the Ferox a brawler you're making it redundant.

Not only are you limiting its effectiveness to close range, but I also feel you're forgetting about the upcoming missile changes.

Hams are getting a nice buff, and they're going to be effected by guided missile precision.

Now, since hmls are getting a 25% range nerf, 10% damage nerf, 10% effectiveness nerf, and fury is being nerfed on all long range missile systems to precision range, this is going to make the drake almost purely focused on brawling.

The only thing I worry is that they're going to forget all about the hml nerfs when they go to balancing the drake and they're going to end up taking away the shield recharge rate forcing them to fit active tanks to be more succeptible to cap warfare.


That said though, the point still is that I think the Ferox is best suited with having the versatility of brawler or ranged.

However, I think it should be given a bonus in some way that gives it a plus at both long range and close range.

Maybe a sig radius bonus?

This would mean it's a small target at close range, but not as effective as a drake, and it would make a decent mid-long range sniper with low sig, but not near as effective or as high range as the Naga.


Basically, making it a brawler is redundant cause the drake will be mostly a brawler, and making it a sniper is redundant cause the Nage is a sniper, so why not make it both?

Oh, and I'm also in agreement with an extra mid slot for more utility
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#17 - 2012-11-28 19:20:09 UTC
well considering the drake will lose its resist bonus for a ROF most likely and less EHP and prob lose a mid i would say it won't be a brawler more of a kiter.

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

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#18 - 2012-11-28 19:45:21 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
well considering the drake will lose its resist bonus for a ROF most likely and less EHP and prob lose a mid i would say it won't be a brawler more of a kiter.



I don't think the drake will lose its resist bonus.

I feel that they'll just kill the shield recharge making them best suited as active tanks, and/or reducing their EHP and making them more of a buffer tank than a passive tank.

Point is, with the hml nerf, unless they're going to be giving the drake a nice damage and range buff, then the drake will be used mostly as a brawler.

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#19 - 2012-11-28 20:04:59 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
well considering the drake will lose its resist bonus for a ROF most likely and less EHP and prob lose a mid i would say it won't be a brawler more of a kiter.



I don't think the drake will lose its resist bonus.

I feel that they'll just kill the shield recharge making them best suited as active tanks, and/or reducing their EHP and making them more of a buffer tank than a passive tank.

Point is, with the hml nerf, unless they're going to be giving the drake a nice damage and range buff, then the drake will be used mostly as a brawler.



Ofc it will lose its resis bonus missile ships don't need to be really tanky they have such good range..... and also people would prefer more dmg from missile ships

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

Recoil IV
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#20 - 2012-11-28 20:10:17 UTC
dont kill ferox ccp,instead make it close range dps
12Next page