These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Question about Assault Ship Changes in the Winter Expansion

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#1 - 2011-10-26 12:49:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Bomberlocks
I'm making a new topic about this question as it will almost certainly go under in the large thread on the (possible) stats of new ships and mods and various changes in the coming and following winter expansion.

Could a dev please state whether the AFs (assault ships) are still in line to receive the long promised 4th bonus?

I think that with the changes coming to destroyers, destroyers are going to be a lot more deadly towards frigate class ships and AFs are going to be of less use against them in their current form, especially since AFs cost about 15 to 20 times more than destroyers do. Giving the AFs a useful 4th bonus, possibly tailored to the specific weakness of each current AF would be a very pleasant idea.
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2011-10-26 12:52:27 UTC
Retribution: 1 extra med slot per level?
Commander Spurty
#3 - 2011-10-26 12:59:42 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
Retribution: 1 extra med slot per level?


Re-read what you just wrote.

Shocked

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Cyzlaki
SEAGULL ENJOYMENT AUTHORITY
S0ns Of Anarchy
#4 - 2011-10-26 13:04:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyzlaki
Someone explain to me first why destroyers need to be touched at all. The balance between frigs/destroyers/cruisers is fine right now and has been for a long time (with the lone exception of the dramiel - that kind of goes without saying anyway).

Since when do destroyers need to be buffed? Who asked for this? Why? I don't believe the ROF change is necessary, by all means correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems to me that a lot of the 'balance' changes are being done for the sake of it, creating new FOTMs; which does nothing but generate more threads like this one asking for even MORE changes - to compensate for the unnecessary tweaks to existing ship bonuses (with the exclusion of hybrids, again this kind of goes without saying).
Kataira
The Eden Trading International Corporation
#5 - 2011-10-26 13:06:36 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
Retribution: 1 extra med slot per level?


+1 for this.
Ender Black
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-10-26 13:10:23 UTC
Cyzlaki wrote:
Someone explain to me first why destroyers need to be touched at all. The balance between frigs/destroyers/cruisers is fine right now and has been for a long time (with the lone exception of the dramiel - that kind of goes without saying anyway).

Since when do destroyers need to be buffed? Who asked for this? Why? I don't believe the ROF change is necessary, by all means correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems to me that a lot of the 'balance' changes are being done for the sake of it, creating new FOTMs; which does nothing but generate more threads like this one asking for even MORE changes - to compensate for the unnecessary tweaks to existing ship bonuses (with the exclusion of hybrids, again this kind of goes without saying).


Having a ship designed to be an "anti-frigate" platform that has an almost cruiser sized signature makes them all but useless in the game outside of hulkageddon activities. It appears to me this round of buffs/nerfs is to add complexity to the fleet composition options an FC can make to secure victory. The more variance, the more weaknesses, the more strengths available allow for far more creative fleet compositions that allow for something other than SuperCap N+1 strategies.

The Pod Goo Podcast http://www.podgoo.com

Pod Goo also publishes editorials, guest blogs, and guides for free.  Just email ender@podgoo.com your material.
Alara IonStorm
#7 - 2011-10-26 13:14:53 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
Retribution: 1 extra med slot per level?

Warp Scramble them 6 times...

Just to be sure.
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#8 - 2011-10-26 13:15:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Bomberlocks
DarkAegix wrote:
Retribution: 1 extra med slot per level?


I agree that dropping a high on the Retribution for an extra midslot would be nice, but that has no bearing on this subject, which is about the long promised 4th bonus to AFs. There was a test implementation on Sisi last year which gave AFs a 15% AB speed increase per level. It was too radical, however, and was dropped because it made some AFs totally overpowered, such as the Jaguar, and basically made interceptors obsolete.

Now, with the destroyer changes, which have also been on the wish list for a long, long time, the 4th bonus to the AFs is really needed.

Edit: The 4th bonus examples:
- Jaguar: an AB speed bonus
- Wolf: a tracking bonus
- Retribution: resist bonus
- Vengeance: agility bonus
- Hawk: cap use reduction bonus
- Harpy: resist bonus
- Enyo: armour repping bonus (yay active tanking)
- Ishkur: Drone damage bonus

If the 4th bonus were specifically tailored to counter the destroyer bonuses, then all the ships should receive resist bonuses.
Takamori Maruyama
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2011-10-26 13:19:37 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
Retribution: 1 extra med slot per level?

That rustled my jimmies

Loud and clear...
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#10 - 2011-10-26 13:38:57 UTC
Pardon me for bumping this. I'd like to keep it near the top to keep it visible.
Alistair Cononach
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#11 - 2011-10-26 13:46:51 UTC
Bomberlocks wrote:
- Retribution: resist bonus
- Vengeance: agility bonus


If thats the fix, then don't bother.

Neither would make either any more than the never-flown-rarities they already are, generally.

I'm sure the Matari guys would love the bonus idea's you've listed tho, since those play into ships already flown far more often and are already far more useful.
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#12 - 2011-10-26 13:49:04 UTC
Alistair Cononach wrote:
Bomberlocks wrote:
- Retribution: resist bonus
- Vengeance: agility bonus


If thats the fix, then don't bother.

Neither would make either any more than the never-flown-rarities they already are, generally.

I'm sure the Matari guys would love the bonus idea's you've listed tho, since those play into ships already flown far more often and are already far more useful.

Bomberlocks wrote:

The 4th bonus examples

Blink
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#13 - 2011-10-26 13:54:25 UTC
Bomberlocks wrote:
...especially since AFs cost about 15 to 20 times more....

Eeek!

ISK is not now, has never been nor will it ever be a deciding factor when it comes to balance.

Also, Huh? What destroyer changes .. is there a 'sekritz!' blog I missed over the weekend or something?

No matter what the 4th bonus is you can rest assured that it will fit snugly with the new dumbed down vision for Eve where everything is about EHP and DPS, proof you say?

- eWar systems have been begging for revamp for years.
- Announced tier3 BCs sound like they will be tier2's with big guns!
- eWar drones have been acknowledged as being broken years ago.
- Speeds have been largely normalized with only slight variations based on race.
- All major mechanic changes the past several years have been of the EHP grind variety.
Etc.

Anyhoo ... AFs, even with 4th, 5th or 6th bonuses, are still going to die horribly to the broken AC boats that make up 90% of all combat ships in Eve so who really cares Sad
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#14 - 2011-10-26 14:01:20 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:

Also, Huh? What destroyer changes .. is there a 'sekritz!' blog I missed over the weekend or something?

No, but there was a diff of the static DB dumped from a build on SiSi which contains some new data, ships and gadgets that CCP is playing around with.

Note, SiSi and playing around with.

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
CCP Lemur
#15 - 2011-10-26 14:04:11 UTC
While I have no idea as to what is up with what you are asking (sorry, working on something completely different) I'd just wanted to say "Welcome back, Bomberlocks". I've only seen you over at erroneous-pile-dare for a while now Cool

QA Guy | Special Ops Picture up to your IMGination.
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#16 - 2011-10-26 14:12:07 UTC
CCP Lemur wrote:
While I have no idea as to what is up with what you are asking (sorry, working on something completely different) I'd just wanted to say "Welcome back, Bomberlocks". I've only seen you over at erroneous-pile-dare for a while now Cool

Thanks, man. It's good to be back and EVE looks to be getting a good deal better in the near future. I'm holding thumbs that you guys can crank all this stuff out in time.

Oh yeah, give my love to the boss. Blink
Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#17 - 2011-10-26 14:19:44 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Bomberlocks wrote:
...especially since AFs cost about 15 to 20 times more....

Eeek!

ISK is not now, has never been nor will it ever be a deciding factor when it comes to balance.

Also, Huh? What destroyer changes .. is there a 'sekritz!' blog I missed over the weekend or something?

No matter what the 4th bonus is you can rest assured that it will fit snugly with the new dumbed down vision for Eve where everything is about EHP and DPS, proof you say?

- eWar systems have been begging for revamp for years.
- Announced tier3 BCs sound like they will be tier2's with big guns!
- eWar drones have been acknowledged as being broken years ago.
- Speeds have been largely normalized with only slight variations based on race.
- All major mechanic changes the past several years have been of the EHP grind variety.
Etc.

Anyhoo ... AFs, even with 4th, 5th or 6th bonuses, are still going to die horribly to the broken AC boats that make up 90% of all combat ships in Eve so who really cares Sad


o/ Hirana. You need to take a look at the db diff that was added over the weekend. The TL;DR is that Hybrids are being buffed in tracking for blasters, damage for rails, fitting requirements and cap use for both, long range short T2 ammo is getting tracking buff, Dessies getting smaller, faster and more hp and losing the RoF penalty. T2 missiles losing the penalties, T2 warfare links (hope you've got your T3 alt trained up), cap and supercap changes and last but not least the new tier 3 Bcs, which, while packing a powerful punch, will only have cruiser like hp and will die like flies to frigates and cruisers.

It's looking good, man.
Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#18 - 2011-10-26 14:54:46 UTC
DarkAegix wrote:
Retribution: 1 extra med slot per level?

Best idea ever!! Big smile
Austneal
Nero Fazione
#19 - 2011-10-26 15:13:37 UTC
Bomberlocks wrote:
and last but not least the new tier 3 Bcs, which, while packing a powerful punch, will only have cruiser like hp and will die like flies to frigates and cruisers.

And the new buffed dessies \o/
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#20 - 2011-10-26 15:24:50 UTC
Naah, not going to bother sifting through data that is most likely going to change several times before going live.

A bit miffed at their dumbed down approach though .. sounds like they are making destroyers into cruiser/frigate schizos at the expense of all frigates ... oh well, we had a couple of years with variety so reckon we are slated for a few years with only a few viable classes.

I have absolute faith in CCP (and their uncanny ability to **** anything up!).

PS: Please for the love of Goddess, tell me that they are not adding even more powerful links without changing how they work?
12Next page