These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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] Sisters of EVE faction ships

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#641 - 2013-10-03 22:32:46 UTC
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
So how would it be with a 2 hardpoint/4 highslot setup with no damage bonus? Seems it's a slot up from the gila anyways, unless the gila is going to get another in the near future as well.

Also, Since Cov-ops and resist bonuses are both acknowledged as being rather powerful, should they both be on the same hull?


As it's an exploration ship, and not a PvP ship, the resist bonuses are needed for PvE.

There might be some good in reducing to 2 hardpoints, but not until CCP adds a laser bonus (eg. optimal).

No, the resists bonuses are NOT NEEDED for PvE. A rep bonus would work just fine. In PvE repair capacity > EHP.

Yup, but CCP said they didn't want to put the rep bonus on this (I forget why, but they were adamant about it).

I would prefer a rep bonus, but I'd take a resist bonus over no tank bonus at all for PvE. No tank bonus would make this useless.

They were, but I'd question the reasoning. I agree that it's a bonus that people don't like as much, but where balance requires it, balance should win. That said I'm just throwing things out there to reign this in a bit rather than wreck it. I think the turret reduction may need to happen though. And with the optimal bonus.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#642 - 2013-10-03 22:33:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Talking about the cruiser here, because the frig is DOA.

The ship isn't overpowered at all.

People look at paper DPS of some ridiculous glass-cannon fits with void and conclude it's overpowered, whereas my Ishtar does way more DPS and actually is able to apply said DPS far better than this ship.

However, if you really want to make this ship use lasers (feeling like shooting my own foot here, having fitted blasters on Pilgrims since five years ago because blasters are the obvious choice for a cov ops cloaked cruiser hull), you should reduce turret hardpoints to two and give it a 100% laser damage bonus.

The ship will have fitting issues with the current stats, pulses are the most demanding short range turret type considering fitting requirements and track the worst of all SR-turrets.

Now given a typical PvP use scenario, I will approach the victim cloaked and let myself get decloaked by a well-placed bump, forcing the target out of alignment if it has any. This alone leaves the range of engageable targets rather limited.

The bump is utterly needed as the ships lacks the targeting delay bonus, so although I have sig analysis and cloaking V on both characters probably flying this ship, I'll need that initial bump to sucessfully scram and gank, which leaves me in perfect range for Blasters or ACs once I engage. Both track better than pulses and have their respective advantages regardless of that (better tracking, higher DPS, lower fitting requirements, less cap use/being capless, selectable damage types etc...etc...).

If you want to force lasers on this ship, 2 hardpoints and a 100% damage bonus is the way to go (and even then, I'd still use blasters/ACs or most likely neuts instead of lasers).
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#643 - 2013-10-03 22:43:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyancat Audeles
Well, there's something we can agree on.

It seems SoE ships always have the same #/ # / # layout so this ship will remain 5/5/5. With that in mind, here's what we CAN do:

>> 2 (or 3?) Turret Hardpoints / 5 High slots + Laser optimal range bonus
>> Change 4% armor resist bonus to 7.5% repair bonus

If it has an armor rep bonus it might need to retain the laser cap usage bonus.

This should make the ship more exploration oriented and less PvP oriented.
So it would be like this:

Stratios

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in Energy Turret capacitor need
Role Bonus: 100% bonus to laser damage (prevents from OP blaster ships - or switch to 50% range bonus instead)
Role Bonus: 37.5% increase Scan Prob Strength
Role Bonus: +5 Virus strength for Relic and Data Analyzers

Can fit Covert Ops Cloaking devices


4% bonus to Armor Resists
7.5% bonus to Armor Repair repair amount per level
7.5% bonus to heavy laser optimal range
10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage per level

Slot layout: 5H, 5M, 5L; 2 (-2) turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 920 PWG, 475 (+75) CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1950 / 2400 / 2450
Capacitor (amount) : 1700
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 182 / .47 / 9350000 / 6.09s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 500
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 275 / 7
Sensor strength: 20
Signature radius: 150
Cargo Capacity: 550
Gwendolyn Ingolfsson
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#644 - 2013-10-03 22:43:40 UTC
Navy Vexor, then Ishtar, now SOE cruiser. This feels like power creep to me.

Maybe it's time to consider introducing Medium Sentry Drones, and then reducing the bandwidth on cruiser sized drone boats?
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#645 - 2013-10-03 22:50:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Well, there's something we can agree on.

It seems SoE ships always have the same #/ # / # layout so this ship will remain 5/5/5. With that in mind, here's what we CAN do:

>> 2 (or 3?) Turret Hardpoints / 5 High slots + Laser optimal range bonus
>> Change 4% armor resist bonus to 7.5% repair bonus

If it has an armor rep bonus it might need to retain the laser cap usage bonus.

This should make the ship more exploration oriented and less PvP oriented.
So it would be like this:

Stratios

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in Energy Turret capacitor need
Role Bonus: 100% bonus to laser damage (prevents from OP blaster ships - or switch to 50% range)
Role Bonus: 37.5% increase Scan Prob Strength
Role Bonus: +5 Virus strength for Relic and Data Analyzers

Can fit Covert Ops Cloaking devices


4% bonus to Armor Resists
7.5% bonus to Armor Repair repair amount per level
7.5% bonus to heavy laser optimal range
10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage per level

Slot layout: 5H, 5M, 5L; 2 (-2) turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 920 PWG, 475 (+75) CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1950 / 2400 / 2450
Capacitor (amount) : 1700
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 182 / .47 / 9350000 / 6.09s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 500
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 275 / 7
Sensor strength: 20
Signature radius: 150
Cargo Capacity: 550

Giving the ship 100% laser bonus completely defeats the reason to remove 2 turret hardpoints, with 4 turrets worth of damage it gets too high of DPS.

I like the active rep idea, but it might be tough convincing CCP to change the resistance to that.

Edit: the Astro has a 2/4/4 setup so the slot layout point is slightly invalid. it would be better as a 4/5/6 layout or to prevent lol shield gank setups 5/4/6.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#646 - 2013-10-03 22:52:26 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Tbh, the way I would fix it would be to reduce CPU by about 10-15%. Keep everything else, slot layout, whatever the same. CCP had the right idea about not giving it a cloak CPU bonus, they just didn't go far enough.

That way you have to choose between damage mods and utillity mods (e.g. going dual prop scram/web + td with all damage and tank in lows would no longer be an option, you would need fitting mods), or maybe you choose to downsize the guns, etc.

Tradeoffs, so we wouldn't get "wtf solo pwnmobiles" (I forgot which CCP dev said this, but that's the reason there are no covops cloak battleships).
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#647 - 2013-10-03 22:55:37 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Tbh, the way I would fix it would be to reduce CPU by about 10-15%. Keep everything else, slot layout, whatever the same. CCP had the right idea about not giving it a cloak CPU bonus, they just didn't go far enough.

That way you have to choose between damage mods and utillity mods (e.g. going dual prop scram/web + td with all damage and tank in lows would no longer be an option, you would need fitting mods), or maybe you choose to downsize the guns, etc.

Tradeoffs, so we wouldn't get a "wtf solo pwnmobiles" (I forgot which CCP dev said this, but that's the reason there are no covops cloak battleships).

to be fair, last update the CPU was still under review. We may see that corrected by the next update. time will tell.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#648 - 2013-10-03 22:57:56 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Tbh, the way I would fix it would be to reduce CPU by about 10-15%. Keep everything else, slot layout, whatever the same. CCP had the right idea about not giving it a cloak CPU bonus, they just didn't go far enough.

That way you have to choose between damage mods and utillity mods (e.g. going dual prop scram/web + td with all damage and tank in lows would no longer be an option, you would need fitting mods), or maybe you choose to downsize the guns, etc.

Tradeoffs, so we wouldn't get a "wtf solo pwnmobiles" (I forgot which CCP dev said this, but that's the reason there are no covops cloak battleships).

15% reduced CPU would work quite well.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#649 - 2013-10-03 23:03:24 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

Giving the ship 100% laser bonus completely defeats the reason to remove 2 turret hardpoints, with 4 turrets worth of damage it gets too high of DPS.

I like the active rep idea, but it might be tough convincing CCP to change the resistance to that.

Edit: the Astro has a 2/4/4 setup so the slot layout point is slightly invalid. it would be better as a 4/5/6 layout or to prevent lol shield gank setups 5/4/6.


Maybe a 50% turret bonus would be better? Either way, much of the point for 2 turrets / DPS bonus was to make it so Neutron gank fits would be ineffective.

Good point about the slot layout... I thought Astero was 4/4/4. Didn't notice... now the Astero seems underpowered, lol Big smile
Gabriel Locke
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#650 - 2013-10-03 23:03:43 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Tbh, the way I would fix it would be to reduce CPU by about 10-15%. Keep everything else, slot layout, whatever the same. CCP had the right idea about not giving it a cloak CPU bonus, they just didn't go far enough.

That way you have to choose between damage mods and utillity mods (e.g. going dual prop scram/web + td with all damage and tank in lows would no longer be an option, you would need fitting mods), or maybe you choose to downsize the guns, etc.

Tradeoffs, so we wouldn't get a "wtf solo pwnmobiles" (I forgot which CCP dev said this, but that's the reason there are no covops cloak battleships).

15% reduced CPU would work quite well.


Surely that'll just make fitting it annoying for both PvP and PvE?
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#651 - 2013-10-03 23:06:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyancat Audeles
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Tbh, the way I would fix it would be to reduce CPU by about 10-15%. Keep everything else, slot layout, whatever the same. CCP had the right idea about not giving it a cloak CPU bonus, they just didn't go far enough.

That way you have to choose between damage mods and utillity mods (e.g. going dual prop scram/web + td with all damage and tank in lows would no longer be an option, you would need fitting mods), or maybe you choose to downsize the guns, etc.

Tradeoffs, so we wouldn't get "wtf solo pwnmobiles" (I forgot which CCP dev said this, but that's the reason there are no covops cloak battleships).

A ~10% CPU reduction *might* make some sense. But a laser optimal bonus would still be needed, to make people not use blasters.

But even a 10% reduction would make this very difficult to fit for PvE. You would have 260 CPU after cloak - that seems a bit TOO low.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#652 - 2013-10-03 23:06:55 UTC
Khellan Charante wrote:
I love these ships, and agree almost completely with them. However, as others have already stated, these are exploration ships, supposedly the best in the galaxy. The cruiser not having a virus strength bonus does not support this. I also think they should be able to compete with tech 2 ships in this regard, following the example of the already first rate sisters probe launchers and probes. Along these lines, you should consider sisters faction probing modules, but I digress.

The frigate, I feel, needs another hi slot. This would at least allow the use of a cloak with the two guns. Since these are supposed to be laser and drone boats, a bonus to laser tracking, something like the Tristan, would make it very enticing for people to actually mount lasers on it. So, I think a layout of 3/3/4 would be better. If this was coupled with a better probing bonus, you would now have a ship that can choose to be exploration focused or covert action focused.


For the cruiser, it needs more CPU. Not an absurd amount more, but enought to make lasers actually viable on it. I think that a 5/4/6 layout, 3 turrets, and a 50% role bonus to laser damage would make this very, very good, as pilots would then have to choose between more damage, ie heavy pulse lasers, or exploration, since the cloak and the probe launcher will eat quite a bit of CPU. I think pushing the CPU to 450 would not be OP, but instead allow this ship to truly stand out on its own. Or, conversely, give it the 50% reduction to cloak CPU and drop the CPU to 375. Also, a cargo bay of 600 would be more in line with the stated goal of a long range ship with lots of force projection capability.

Lastly, are there any plans for a battlecruiser? Because that would be absolutely amazing.


Please frigate needs 4 mids slots for efficient exploring cargo scanner relic data mwd some of those sites are huge in null.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Dehval
Ascendance Rising
Ascendance..
#653 - 2013-10-03 23:07:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Dehval
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Nyancat Audeles wrote:
Well, there's something we can agree on.

It seems SoE ships always have the same #/ # / # layout so this ship will remain 5/5/5. With that in mind, here's what we CAN do:

>> 2 (or 3?) Turret Hardpoints / 5 High slots + Laser optimal range bonus
>> Change 4% armor resist bonus to 7.5% repair bonus

If it has an armor rep bonus it might need to retain the laser cap usage bonus.

This should make the ship more exploration oriented and less PvP oriented.
So it would be like this:

Stratios

Role Bonus: 50% reduction in Energy Turret capacitor need
Role Bonus: 100% bonus to laser damage (prevents from OP blaster ships - or switch to 50% range)
Role Bonus: 37.5% increase Scan Prob Strength
Role Bonus: +5 Virus strength for Relic and Data Analyzers

Can fit Covert Ops Cloaking devices


4% bonus to Armor Resists
7.5% bonus to Armor Repair repair amount per level
7.5% bonus to heavy laser optimal range
10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage per level

Slot layout: 5H, 5M, 5L; 2 (-2) turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 920 PWG, 475 (+75) CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1950 / 2400 / 2450
Capacitor (amount) : 1700
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 182 / .47 / 9350000 / 6.09s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 500
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 275 / 7
Sensor strength: 20
Signature radius: 150
Cargo Capacity: 550

Giving the ship 100% laser bonus completely defeats the reason to remove 2 turret hardpoints, with 4 turrets worth of damage it gets too high of DPS.

I like the active rep idea, but it might be tough convincing CCP to change the resistance to that.

Edit: the Astro has a 2/4/4 setup so the slot layout point is slightly invalid. it would be better as a 4/5/6 layout or to prevent lol shield gank setups 5/4/6.

Or, or, or... We get rid of the drone damage bonus. Now, I know what you are thinking, crazy right? So lets give it a 10% bonus to HP, Tracking, and Speed. Heavy Drones and Sentries on their own do a lot of damage before bonuses and have some trouble applying. Now they don't.

Now remove one turret hardpoint, for a total of three, and give it the 100% laser damage bonus for 6 effective turrets (Same as Ashimmu). The outcome will be about 600 dps split 370/230 between drones and lasers. More than enough for 6/10s. More than enough for a Covert Ship to PvP with if they are smart about targets. Not enough to make them rival Ishtars/Gilas/Nvexors/Domis in damage output.

No real input on the tanking bonus from me. I'd prefer the 4% all resist, but that is just because it is an Amarrian bonus being given out by the Amarr cruiser skill. 7.5% armor rep is a Gallente bonus and it would just irk me to see that under the Amarr skill.

And after playing with the fitting on this ship all day yesterday, the numbers they have are right where they should be imo, regarding fitting of course. If you go to extremes you run into either CPU or PG issues that require 3% implants like all good ships should. If you fly it as a generic explorer you are miles away from running into either of the fitting caps. If you really did need to mess with the CPU. A small amount of 15 cpu to the base would be sufficient enough to allow you to fit a basic T2 armor loadout without an implant.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#654 - 2013-10-03 23:08:41 UTC
Gabriel Locke wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Tbh, the way I would fix it would be to reduce CPU by about 10-15%. Keep everything else, slot layout, whatever the same. CCP had the right idea about not giving it a cloak CPU bonus, they just didn't go far enough.

That way you have to choose between damage mods and utillity mods (e.g. going dual prop scram/web + td with all damage and tank in lows would no longer be an option, you would need fitting mods), or maybe you choose to downsize the guns, etc.

Tradeoffs, so we wouldn't get a "wtf solo pwnmobiles" (I forgot which CCP dev said this, but that's the reason there are no covops cloak battleships).

15% reduced CPU would work quite well.


Surely that'll just make fitting it annoying for both PvP and PvE?

Tradeoffs are important, and something you see in many ships. Removing a slot or a hardpoint takes those slots away from EVERYONE and all play styles.

Reducing fitting would force players that want to maximize gank or isk/hr into making choices. Do I want to use a rig slot to fit a cpu rig, a low slot for a co-processor, or downsize my guns?

This way each individual player chooses which tradeoff to make for their own individual needs. It promotes both balance and variety.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#655 - 2013-10-03 23:22:31 UTC
Dehval wrote:
Or, or, or... We get rid of the drone damage bonus. Now, I know what you are thinking, crazy right? .

This ship is as much a laser ship as the gila is a missile ship. CCP Rise suggested that the Gila (and I am assuming by association all Guristas ships) are no longer going to be drone ships.

There is a laser pirate ship, there is a projectile pirate ship, there is a hybrid pirate ship, maybe the new Guristas ships will be missile pirate ships, that leaves a drone pirate ship which low and behold SOE is a drone focused ship.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Gabriel Locke
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#656 - 2013-10-03 23:24:32 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Gabriel Locke wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Tbh, the way I would fix it would be to reduce CPU by about 10-15%. Keep everything else, slot layout, whatever the same. CCP had the right idea about not giving it a cloak CPU bonus, they just didn't go far enough.

That way you have to choose between damage mods and utillity mods (e.g. going dual prop scram/web + td with all damage and tank in lows would no longer be an option, you would need fitting mods), or maybe you choose to downsize the guns, etc.

Tradeoffs, so we wouldn't get a "wtf solo pwnmobiles" (I forgot which CCP dev said this, but that's the reason there are no covops cloak battleships).

15% reduced CPU would work quite well.


Surely that'll just make fitting it annoying for both PvP and PvE?

Tradeoffs are important, and something you see in many ships. Removing a slot or a hardpoint takes those slots away from EVERYONE and all play styles.

Reducing fitting would force players that want to maximize gank or isk/hr into making choices. Do I want to use a rig slot to fit a cpu rig, a low slot for a co-processor, or downsize my guns?

This way each individual player chooses which tradeoff to make for their own individual needs. It promotes both balance and variety.


Sure, but if you drop the CPU too much you force "EVERYONE and all play styles" to make the choice between an okay fit or a good fit with a co-processor II.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#657 - 2013-10-03 23:25:51 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Please do not forget +10% virus strength on these, otherwise it is all academic as almost no one will use them for exploration outside of hisec.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#658 - 2013-10-03 23:27:23 UTC
Gabriel Locke wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Gabriel Locke wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Tbh, the way I would fix it would be to reduce CPU by about 10-15%. Keep everything else, slot layout, whatever the same. CCP had the right idea about not giving it a cloak CPU bonus, they just didn't go far enough.

That way you have to choose between damage mods and utillity mods (e.g. going dual prop scram/web + td with all damage and tank in lows would no longer be an option, you would need fitting mods), or maybe you choose to downsize the guns, etc.

Tradeoffs, so we wouldn't get a "wtf solo pwnmobiles" (I forgot which CCP dev said this, but that's the reason there are no covops cloak battleships).

15% reduced CPU would work quite well.


Surely that'll just make fitting it annoying for both PvP and PvE?

Tradeoffs are important, and something you see in many ships. Removing a slot or a hardpoint takes those slots away from EVERYONE and all play styles.

Reducing fitting would force players that want to maximize gank or isk/hr into making choices. Do I want to use a rig slot to fit a cpu rig, a low slot for a co-processor, or downsize my guns?

This way each individual player chooses which tradeoff to make for their own individual needs. It promotes both balance and variety.


Sure, but if you drop the CPU too much you force "EVERYONE and all play styles" to make the choice between an okay fit or a good fit with a co-processor II.

For PvE it is not that bad with 15% reduced CPU

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#659 - 2013-10-03 23:27:27 UTC
Gabriel Locke wrote:


Sure, but if you drop the CPU too much you force "EVERYONE and all play styles" to make the choice between an okay fit or a good fit with a co-processor II.

Tbh, I might downsize the guns first before I fit a co-pro on a drone boat. And that's the point. Choices. Trade offs.
Bendak Silf
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#660 - 2013-10-03 23:28:14 UTC
really do wish that they would just make each type of ship faction have their own skill set, instead of just the four basic, kind of like they did for the ORE ships