Player Features and Ideas Discussion

There are serious imbalances that NEED to be addressed IMMEDIATELY THAT AFFECT ELECTRONIC ATTACK FRIGATES.


1. Strategic Cruisers + warfare-links + Covert Ops Cloak and Command Processors COMBINED IS A SERIOUS ISSUE. CCP could fix this issue easily by REMOVING the "Warfare Processor" subsystems. I and others CLEARLY prefer a cloaked-command ship.


2. Electronic warfare modules are also a SERIOUS ISSUE. I know pilots have been complaining about ECM for years. However, that was mainly due to widespread use, effectiveness and range. Tracking disruptors have ALWAYS been VERY EFFECTIVE to but were used less. Remote sensor dampeners were also effective but were used EVEN LESS. Well! Things have changed since CCP increased sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors effectiveness. NOW, Tracking disruptors and Remote Sensor dampeners seem to be on EVERY SHIP these days. Un-bonused these modules are as effective as a ship bonused for their use.

Note: there's also an interesting phenomenon in game that happens when ANY MODULE, AMMUNITION OR SHIP IS BOOSTED. Players immediately show, instant and remarkable interest. Which leads to widespread use in a module or mechanic that was largely ignored. Irrespective of the level change; even minute at least for awhile; untill the most effective become persistent.


3. Tech 1 cruisers and frigates are imbalanced. Most tech 1 cruisers can match or out pace tech 2 cruisers and MOST FRIGATES. Tech 1 cruisers should never outpace destroyers... Tech 1 frigates are as good or better than Interceptors; tech 1 electronic warfare frigates are as good or better than Electronic Attack Frigates. Not to mention Widespread use of tech 1 logistics (not many agree with this one at all).


Conclusion

So, this is the lens I look thru when considering these changes.

Electronic attack frigates ARE GOOD SHIPS (except the Hyena). There's just cheaper options that produce similar outcomes. Also, I'm not a fan of increasing the effectiveness of ECM, Remote sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors. However, I'm NOT AGAINST increasing neut range; warp disruptor and scrambler range and stasis webifier range. These are things that their tech 1 counterparts cannot reproduce. The Kitsune is fine as it is now. Removing their ability to apply damage is also something that will bring BALANCE TO THE FORCE. From there CCP CAN START REDUCING SIGNATURE RADIUS; lowering ship velocity and Increasing TANK.

the main reason why you didn't see EWAR frigs in fleets was the lock range. The T1 variant did basically the same thing and had a lockrange which made the ewar bonus useful.

example: sentinel was just a worse crucifier if all you needed was a frig with TDs. Cruicifier had almost twice the lock range out of the box. This means that you usually died to long range turret boats before you where even able to burn into lock range - sentinel just didn't do its job (fun fact: lock range was far less than the optimal range of a TD). You see the same thing with griffins and the T2 variant. A stock griffin can jam you from 70k, the old T2 variant cant.


all what was needed was the lock range. I don't care about the neut range buff of the sentinel, speed or hp buff - its already fine as it is IMO, the lock range buff however changes everything.

More attack less electronic.

how about something more dramatic here something unique with a more aggressive feel to it and more frigate like range.

KERES - make it creodron

Gallente Frigate Bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Drone Tracking and MWD velocity
10% bonus to Drone hit-points per level

Electronic Attack Ships Bonuses:
10% bonus to warp disruptor range per level
10% reduction in warp disruptor capacitor need per level

Slot layout: 2H, 4M, 4L; 2 turrets
Fittings: 42 PWG, 215 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 335 / 440/ 430
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 375 / 187s (-93s) / 2.00 (+.66)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 355(+10) / 4.1 / 1095000 / 6.22s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 50
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 35km / 550 / 7
Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(-.5)
Signature radius: 33

Role bonus
25% reduction in incoming damage due to sensor disruption techniques

KITSUNE

Caldari Frigate Bonuses:
5% rocket and light missile damage per level
10% rocket and light missile velocity per level

Electronic Attack Ships Bonuses:
10% reduction in ECM target jammers' capacitor need
25% bonus to ECM target jammer strength per level

Slot layout: 2H, 5M, 3L, 2 launchers
Fittings: 39 PWG, 280 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 450 / 300 / 325
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 415 / 195s (-116s) / 2.12 (+.79)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 315 / 3.86 / 1117000 / 5.98s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50 / 520 / 7
Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 38

Role bonus
25% reduction in incoming damage due to sensor disruption techniques

I suppose a that's along the lines of what they should look like Harvey James. However, I'm not sure they should have resistance bonuses but bonuses to shield, armor and or hull amount would be ok v0v

Harder to abuse them that way.

I am happy with the way the bonuses are laid out in the original post. I don't much care about the Kitsune, because it never needed to be close to its target anyway, but in order to apply webs, warp scramblers and neutralizers, the other ships need to be at a relatively close range even with their old bonuses. They need that extra range because they have a minimal tank and relatively large signature radius. Even with the minor buffs to their signature radius, it's not enough to put them on par with other frigates with regard to damage mitigation. If anything, they should have smaller signatures because they are "electronically hardened".

If the proposal changes such that the bonuses are lower again, then it should similarly decrease the signatures more and give them resist profiles consistent with the combat recons which they desperately need. This, combined with their slight hull/armor/shield buffs will help their ability to tank and keep them from instantly dying in any fight that isn't completely one-sided. They don't have covert ops cloaks (and they shouldn't), so there is no reason to treat them like force recons.

The reason they were never flown* is because even in very small skirmishes they were likely to die very quickly. Either the range bonus (with the exception of the Kitsune which could already be decently far away) or a buff to their tank will counter this problem.

I specifically exclude the Kitsune from my discussion because previously with imperfect skills it had an optimal of about 60 with T2 jammers, which is more than any frigate needs. Rather than a range bonus, it probably needs some secondary form of offensive electronic warfare (like, but not equal to the web, warp scrambler and energy neutralizer) to make it want to be at a more reasonable range. Shield dischordance generator (penalty to shield resistances)? Nanite disruption field (penalty to armor resistances)? Electronic systems disruption (other offensive electronic warfare is stronger on the affected ship)?

Of course I generally come at most problems from a very-small-gang point of view. But this is where I think EAFs are useful.

* And their lack in popularity is exactly why they are so expensive, by the way -- since fewer are flown, there is less demand, and less demand means fewer people want to produce because bulk production is easier, and then with fewer suppliers the cost is driven up. I suspect CCP knows this, but others complaining about the relative performance for the price point should take note.

Good changes, but no PG nerf? You can still fit oversized ab with mse AND MASB on hyena, triple mse on keres, etc.

Without Links or overheating or faction/deadspace stupidity -

30km webs on Hyena. 33.15m sig radius at level 5. That is very acceptable.

The Keres can send a Warp Disrputor out to 42km. That is important as at 36km there was not a huge difference between it and a fleet interceptor. Slightly more point range at the cost of speed and survivability and being 2-3x more expensive didn't cut it. Again, acceptable.

The Kitsune could use a little more ECM strength per level to pull it closer to the Falcon/Rook and differentiate it a bit more from the Griffin/Blackbird.

The Sentintel still has the long neuts. Expect crying.

SENTINEL

Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(-5) / 60

Uh, What?

Are you kidding? Sentinel was the only EAS, which was able to do some solo pvp, and it always lacked dps. And now you make its dps even lesser by removing one drone from available to launch?

What's going on?

Sentinel has to get additional drones (up to 5 small drones simultaneously), that would make it more usable in small scape pvp, solo raids, fractional warfare, etc.

I really hope the guy who decided to reduce Sentinel's bandwidth will change his mind anyway.