These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rubicon] Interceptors

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mr Doctor
Therapy.
Brave Collective
#161 - 2013-10-03 12:20:18 UTC
Just a thought, how about making nulification an active highslot module that only ceptors can fit. Reason being that sometimes you want to get caught in a bubble. Make the cycletime 10-20secs and also its state as you enter warp dictates if you are caught or pass through (any mid warp changes dont matter)
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#162 - 2013-10-03 12:28:31 UTC
I've always felt that the interceptors especially the combat interceptors overlap too much with standard frigs and afs in the damage role.

I'd rather see them more focused on there role of interception.

To this end I'd like to see the intis give up some base damage and damage bonuses and have dps's comparable to the ewar frigs.

In exchange for this they should become more survivable still, better able to tackle and get safe once the fleet arrives.


Role boosting bonii to consider

. Lower sigs and sig bonuses to help avoid SB camps would be a nice complement to the null sec only interdiction null boost.
. Resistance ( maybe not completelly ) to webbing and neuting
. Immunity to mwd shutoff from scrams
. 7.5% boosts to dissi and scram range
Mira Dawn
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#163 - 2013-10-03 12:41:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mira Dawn
Interceptors - The wrong way to do what you're doing!

You want fast tacle Frigates - good idea but why do you change T2 Frigattes?

The logical progression would be strategic Frigates (T3) ! Give these two subsystems, and each can be configured with two different parts. One way to configure this would be bubble-imune ships, but there were also other possibilities which could perhaps be important for the players.
Major Killz
inglorious bastards.
#164 - 2013-10-03 12:45:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Major Killz
Soo... What can I say. Caldari have won these changes again too. The Malediction and Crow will be VERY nasty and I expect to see them abused or more like doing the abusing... Funny enough I find the Raptor Interesting but otherwise T1 frigates can do the same or better than most interceptors at tackling and engaging other frigates.

Like the Crow has as much EHP as a Condor with one damage control. In fact the condor has WAY more flexibility in fittings. WILL THIS CHANGE? Doesn't seem like it. Its NOt like Interceptors have much issues getting threw bubble related anything now...

[u]Ich bin ein Pirat ！[/u]
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#165 - 2013-10-03 13:22:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Taranis needs a speed buff it is slow compared to the rest of the combat inties considering it has worse range than the raptor it really should be the second fastest after the claw since its meant to be the armour version of the raptor now you also have to factor in a plate and trimarks too.... overall its a nerf to the taranis when it really needs a buff..

Even the amarr inties are quicker than the taranis for christ sake !!!!!

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
Dav Varan
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#166 - 2013-10-03 13:46:52 UTC
Lack of utility mids on the sader/raptor/claw are going to make them outclassed by there peers.

3mids on armor tankers and 4 mids on shield tankers should be the standard.

Given the pigeonholing of the raptor into the long range dissy is only viable fit category is it prudent to give the point range bonus to the crow ?
Kadesh Priestess
Descendance.
GoonSwarm.
#167 - 2013-10-03 13:56:35 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Taranis needs a speed buff it is slow compared to the rest of the combat inties considering it has worse range than the raptor it really should be the second fastest after the claw since its meant to be the armour version of the raptor now you also have to factor in a plate and trimarks too.... overall its a nerf to the taranis when it really needs a buff..

Even the amarr inties are quicker than the taranis for christ sake !!!!!
That's why ranis has decent DPS, ehp and 3 med slots Roll

Armor tank is a lie, almost always tank on a ceptor is plain DC, for shield ceptors it can be reinforced by MSE/MASB, for armor - AAR. Plated ceptor fits are generally bad, because 200mm plate effectiveness is worse than one of AAR, and 400mm transforms intie into AF-wannabe, slow and useless (hello claw).
Boogalo
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2013-10-03 14:05:19 UTC
I fit a micro aux and MSE on my ares Twisted

Please please don't take away the ares tracking bonus. As a fleet interceptor with a long point, you need the tracking to get drones off you. You're not there to do damage. Use a Taranis for that, or a ship that's not made of paper.
NorthCrossroad
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#169 - 2013-10-03 14:38:51 UTC
Half of combat inties are still horribad. Taranis is OK as it used to. Raptor might be used a bit more.

But Claw and Crusader were horrendously bad with their "2 mid" layout. And they will continue to be. Anything frigate-size with scram and web (3+ mids hint hint) will dictate the range as it wants to. And a separate role of a "tackler with point and no web killer" is too niche to make flying those combat inties viable.

My suggestion for combat inties - make them somewhat web-immune. Like 30-50% reduction of web strength that is applied to the ship. This will allow combat inties to dictate engagements not only against tackle frigs that usually have (MWD+Point+MSE) fitted, but also against usual combat frigs that have MWD+Scram+Web. So it will basically make those combat inties a "light anti-frigate" platform that can keep the target tackled instead of just "useless piece of crap with 2 mid slots". Of course it'll require taranis update (and maybe raptor one). But it'll allow the whole line of ships to be useful.

North
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#170 - 2013-10-03 15:04:22 UTC
Ships with 2 mids cannot fit full tackle. They couldn't "intercept" a three legged dog.

Any pratical use for them is negated by this crippling flaw. DPS as a role for frigates is pointless if you can't hold them down to apply it. Let's break this down:

Solo use is impossible, because they cannot hold down a target adequately to apply their dps.

Fleet use is impractical, because a fleet needs their frigates for tackling. If you cannot fit tackle, you are forcing your fleet to carry your weight. There are far better sources of dps (AFs leaping to mind), so dps as a role is completely pointless.

I would be thrilled to know why this absurdity continues to exist, given that it obviously invalidates the ships crippled by it to being relegated for ship spinning.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#171 - 2013-10-03 15:12:10 UTC
As someone said earlier in this thread, 2 mid slots ceptors are no good for obvious reasons, split weapon system ceptors are no good again for obvious reasons.

These 2 points need changes, 3mids minimum, single weapon system.

Also on a side note about speed, these should have very similar agility/base speed with very little difference. The main point of my opinion on this matter being that someone specializing in one race will not be penalized for not being able to fly the fastest one. It's not about making everything equal but give to different race specialized pilots same fun factor to achieve their job but in a different manner thanks to racial traits that might be the weapon system or tackle bonus.

Many players seem to assume inties are uncatchable and will be even worst after this change, well guys think a bit about it: you're flying the most paper thin ships in the game requiring mechanics and flying knowledge to stay alive.
The slightest mistake on your approach angle or orbit and you get a hole from those arties/rails/beams blasting you to pieces, under neuts meaning you're as dead as if you were shot, scram/web with drone puppies eating you alive, so it's not that simple.

Imho this nulli idea is an awesome addition promoting inty pilots and rewarding piloting effort, those are harassers, paper thin harassers that can be countered with some thinking and piloting skills. However those shouldn't be able to dish much dps, their hole strength should be around harassing abilities to pin down stuff and hoar on km's but not be able to pin stuff, move at will and kill easily larger ships (old Dramiel everyone?)

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Ametyste Aek
Perkone
Caldari State
#172 - 2013-10-03 15:35:56 UTC
As many people have pointed before I am really not impressed by what you did to "fix" this class.

You give them a situational bonuses they didn't really need. Yes warping straight away to your target through bubble might make you land a point on an non careful pilot but it brings other issues that have been pointed out before :

- If your fleet get caught in warp bubble you'll land up to 120km away, with heat & link you'll need about 20 sec to close the gap.
- Same goes for the enemy, drag bubble might prove to save people from inties.
- It's useless in 50% of your sandbox.

Now about the lock range bonuses :

You said you wanted people to make compromise and using fitting to fix their lock range. I wouldn't mind the idea if you had taken that approach for other specialized ship in the game but i don't think it's the case.

What does it accomplish from a gameplay point of view to gimp a specialized ship class to accomplish their dedicated role ?
It has been pointed out that it's not such a big deal for compat ceptors but can you explain why you think it would be broken to allow fleet inties to perform their job without having to gimp their fitting ?

Are you going to give combat recon 60km lock range and tell them to fit Sebo so they can apply ewar further ?
Let's drop Logistics Sensor Strenght to 200mm and what the hell, you want to lock faster ? Get a Sebo !
Are the EAFS you're planning to re balance be subject to that kind of limitation too ?
In the end we got a situational ship class bonus, a few fixes that will change the worst and best with no in class diversity while still being hardly better at their intended role.

I'd love to see racial bonuses for inties :

- Caldari : Bonus to lock range & scan res
- Minmatar : Further decrease in signature while in MWD
- Gallente : Bonus to Disrupt range
- Amarr : Bonus to armor reps (allong with the current +4% resist)

This way you create diverse platforms, allowing a real choice and gameplay difference between them. Note that these are just proposition i though and should be brainstormed & considered, don't start arguing about why such bonus would be op and another useless, i brought these to make this point : InterRAcial Hull comformity is boring as ****, it doesn't bring anything to the table but a best in class performer in its intended role. Specialize further each hulls so they can bring something different.
Teth Razor
Chicks on Speed
#173 - 2013-10-03 15:45:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Teth Razor
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
As someone said earlier in this thread, 2 mid slots ceptors are no good for obvious reasons, split weapon system ceptors are no good again for obvious reasons.

These 2 points need changes, 3mids minimum, single weapon system.

Also on a side note about speed, these should have very similar agility/base speed with very little difference. The main point of my opinion on this matter being that someone specializing in one race will not be penalized for not being able to fly the fastest one. It's not about making everything equal but give to different race specialized pilots same fun factor to achieve their job but in a different manner thanks to racial traits that might be the weapon system or tackle bonus.

Many players seem to assume inties are uncatchable and will be even worst after this change, well guys think a bit about it: you're flying the most paper thin ships in the game requiring mechanics and flying knowledge to stay alive.
The slightest mistake on your approach angle or orbit and you get a hole from those arties/rails/beams blasting you to pieces, under neuts meaning you're as dead as if you were shot, scram/web with drone puppies eating you alive, so it's not that simple.

Imho this nulli idea is an awesome addition promoting inty pilots and rewarding piloting effort, those are harassers, paper thin harassers that can be countered with some thinking and piloting skills. However those shouldn't be able to dish much dps, their hole strength should be around harassing abilities to pin down stuff and hoar on km's but not be able to pin stuff, move at will and kill easily larger ships (old Dramiel everyone?)


OMG THINK! How the hell does the Nullification idea "reward piloting effort"? It doesn't! There is no piloting effort in flying a nullified ship.

And with the new warp acceleration, hitting a celestial or ping on a gate will not slow scouts down as much.

I can not stress enough how BAD NULLIFACTION ON FRIGATES IS for null sec!
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
#174 - 2013-10-03 15:57:41 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
3 Mids - Speed stuff

I agree with the small speed diferences IF Claw and Crusader gets the 3rd mid.
Otherwise, no, Claw and Crusader must be the fastest by a large margin.
AspiB'elt
Les chevaliers de l'ordre
Goonswarm Federation
#175 - 2013-10-03 16:06:05 UTC  |  Edited by: AspiB'elt
really for me it's not the good way to go.

I propose to modify your interceptor with this statistic

MALEDICTION - Big change for the Malediction is moving one highslot to a low, providing a lot more options for either damage mods, tank or fitting mods. The rocket damage bonus is also being converted to small missile RoF, increasing dps slightly and allowing the effective use of light missiles. A bit of HP shifted to armor allows it to more easily take advantage of the resist bonus.

Amarr Frigate Bonuses:
5% bonus to Rocket and Light Missile rate of fire per level (was rocket damage)
4% bonus to armor resistances per level

Interceptors Bonuses:
15% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty per level
5% Warp Disruptor range per level ( remove 5% warp scrambler)

Role bonuses:
80% reduction in Propulsion Jamming systems activation cost
Can fit interceptor module (remove Immunity to non-targeted interdiction)

Slot layout: 3H(-1), 3M, 4L(+1); 1(-2) turrets, 3 launchers
Fittings: 35 PWG, 150(+15) CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 325(-97) / 550(+93) / 425(-32)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 355(+11.25) / 266.25s (+8.4) / 1.33
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 435 / 3.15(+0.05) / 999000 / 4.36(+0.07)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 27.5km(+5) / 900 / 5(+1)
Sensor strength: 12 Radar
Signature radius: 33
Cargo Capacity: 98(-37)

Interceptor module is a mix between scramble and web (only one can be fitted on interceptor)
scramble range 15 km
Web 15 km 30 % webifier strenght

Remove the nullifier bonus is not a good thing. The main role of the interceptor is to tackle not other thing.

If you would like to make some nullifier is for fregate t3 ans the price will be not the same than interceptor.
Randy Wray
Warcrows
THE OLD SCHOOL
#176 - 2013-10-03 16:13:06 UTC
The light missile condor was completely dominating facwar frigate pvp(and still kinda is) especially with links which made it able to orbit so far out and become so fast noone could ever hope of slingshotting it. Now you're making 3 ships that are essentially linked condors with the ganglinked point built into the hull. For the sake of the lowsec frigate community, which is huge atm, please rethink this.

One thing that I think would solve alot of problems I see with these interceptors stat wise would be the addition of another slot, it's kinda strange that they have the same amount of slots as the t1 counterparts for no apparent reason. That would get the claw and crusader it's extra mid and would help out the other hulls greatly aswell. They're supposed to be specialized versions of the attack frigates after all, and I think calling this slight difference specialization ain't really fair.

Solo Pvper in all areas of space including wormhole space. Check out my youtube channel @ http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd6M3xV43Af-3E1ds0tTyew/feed for mostly small scale pvp in lowsec/nullsec

twitch.tv/randywray
Thabink
PonyWaffe
#177 - 2013-10-03 16:29:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Thabink
We now have 3 missile fleet inties and no missile combat inties, which seems odd. I'm not sure what the purpose of the Crow/Raptor swap was. The Raptor was clearly broken and needed an overhaul, but the Crow basically seemed to work as a concept.

I'll echo that I'm not sure what the Claw and Crusader are meant to be good for. They're both quick, but also seem to be designed with short range weapons in mind, and neither can dictate range once scrams are applied. An optimal range bonus would be a neat fix for the Crusader, allowing it to shoot from outside scram range, but the Claw pretty much needs a third mid or a complete rethink imo.
DNSBLACK
Dirt Nap Squad
#178 - 2013-10-03 16:31:12 UTC
"We’re also creating more distinct levels of warp speed between ship groups (at the moment destroyers, cruiser, BCs and BS all warp the same speed). Most T2 ships will be slightly faster than their T1 versions (more if their role demands it) to reflect their more advanced construction.

The result of these changes will be that gangs of small ships will be able to travel across large areas of space much more quickly to find fights, people will have better decisions available to them when picking the ship to bring to a fight, and clever wings of interceptors or interdictors will be able to loop around ahead of hostile battleship fleets to cut them off."

CCP FOZZIE


1. This will become a hi speed shuttle. getting ahead of and tackling anything other then a BS will get you killed. The huge BS fleets moving thru gates would fear this ship but wait read below

2. The fleet role has been diminished due to the way these fleets move thru space. Fleets do not use gates anynmore going to the fight or returning home is done thru cynos. The ability to get ahead of them is not needed unless you have plans to get rid of the titan bridges and return the game to the gates. This will lead to fleets moving thru space again. This in turn would slow down the battle field and war progression. Empire could be reborn and last.

http://evenews24.com/2012/11/29/a-letter-to-csm-7-back-to-the-gates/

3. If you are bent on making it a ship of value in the current state of the game give it some teeth that our current "have titan must drop" doctrine needs. Allow the inty to fit the focused point with no bubbble ability. This will allow them to tackle super caps and then you would see FC developing squadrons of these guys to bring on the TITAN droping fights we currently have in eve. Currently dictors die to fast and heavy die just as fast. 50 inty moving in and out of a cap fight would be awsome. This would also allow the solo inty to be out hunting supers ratting and so on.

I think before you make a change you have to define the current battle field and in this case the gate Battle field is dead.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#179 - 2013-10-03 16:43:24 UTC
Randy Wray wrote:
The light missile condor was completely dominating facwar frigate pvp(and still kinda is) especially with links which made it able to orbit so far out and become so fast noone could ever hope of slingshotting it. Now you're making 3 ships that are essentially linked condors with the ganglinked point built into the hull. For the sake of the lowsec frigate community, which is huge atm, please rethink this.


Fozzie, about 6 months ago:

Quote:
Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame.
Gorgoth24
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2013-10-03 16:51:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Gorgoth24
Just as a first impression, all the initial problems I saw in these ships seemed to be addressed.

Lock range issues? All fleet tackle interceptors have 3 mids (point/prop/sebo) as armor boats and 4 slots (+1 mid for tank) on shield boats. So close range they can use scram/web and long range point/sebo. I like the tradeoff.

Mid slot issues? All the ships that need 3 mids are the long range ones and they have them. It's only the short range ones with 2. I've never been a fan of 2 mid ships, but I can definitely see how it works given how the crusader and claw are set up.

Fitting woes? Buffed

I really think this is a solid pass on these ships. I doubt I'll be heard through all the lock range complaining, but I just thought it should be said.

Just PLEASE keep in mind that any buff to mids or lock range is going to have an enormous impact on the lowsec frigate community. We already have enough OGB boosted, snaked, TD/Damp frigs without these guys being inadvertently buffed into that role.