Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Bingo. It's not analogous to the Vexor, but rather to the Celestis.

The OP is one gigantic category error.

This is not to say that the Amarr Recons don't need buffed, they really really do. But the Arbitrator itself is just fine.

I see too many posts related to things that aren't the focus of this topic. To borrow a phrase:

"Fits or GTFO"

Amarr EWar ships don't need a buff. TD is situational based so good and bad depending on who you up against. Turrets good target... Missiles maybe run away...

To all the fools saying "hurf blurf Arby is fine if you drop the mini curse analogy" I say 2 missile hardpoints. QED.

Plus, if you do decide to make a DPS boat out of this, it hardly shines versus....here we go again...the Vexor, Moa or Omen. Which, deary me, you told me I couldn't compare it to.

So, lets play around with making a Blackbird which doesn't make the mistake of trying to be a "mini Falcon" (because, Rook why bother).



Pathetic.

Or the Celestis. People piloting one of the most amazing, all-powerful EWAR ships in the game, which has punchy ISK/usefulness and zomgdamps, should get over the fact it is a terribad clone of the Lach and DPS fit it.



Not bad per se, but more of a lolfit you try out once or twice to prove it can actually kill something.

Bellicose...well, as previously pointed out, it could actually use a bit of love itself but is not in as dire straits as the Arby.

I can get 430DPS and 21K EHP out of a DPS Arby.

Now, to prove my point.

Kaarous Aldurald, according to zkillboard, with a total of 73 kills under his illustrious belt, flew and Arby and tried mini-curse once (and lost it), and can now say no more about my "mis-categorisation errors".

Syrias Bizniz, after a bit of digging on zkillboard, is shown to have flown the baby curse arbitrator 5 times and tried an RR version once. So, what is this? Vast wisdom suddenly coming to you after you realised after 5 tries at the ship it made a bad baby Curse, proving my point? Show me your non-baby curse fit and what you killed with it, because it's obviously boss given you've never lost it.

This is a discussion about the fitting potential of a ship which most of the time, people try to fit to be a T1 simulation of its T2 betters. Nothing so far has provided a fit even remotely similar to the Celestis (4 damps + 1600 plate) or the Blackbird (5 jams + 1600 plate) in terms of usefulness as a gang or fleet EWAR platform.



One fitting mod, no hope of fitting anything remotely gun or missile like in the highs. Not even a single smartbomb. Again, it could seriously use some powergrid. There's no way around it, I've come at this ship from every conceivable angle and it is lacking the PG to fit anything easily with one fitting module, whilst still maintaining any form of offence.

I agree. I have no issue with a TD-for-Missiles being introduced, but it should not be the TD. They should be separate modules that force you to choose which is more important to you.

Okay, let's sum this up:

Blackbird compared to Falcon.
ECM on T1, compared to ECM + Cov Ops Cloak on the big brother.
They both utilize ECM, thus the Blackbird is a superb cheap alternative for those not able or not willing to fly a Falcon for whatever reason.
No reason whatsoever to fit the BB for dps.
Also, keep in mind, a solo blackbird will most likely not find a 1v1. Cause people aren't dumb and know that they will face ECM.

Celestis compared to Lachesis/Arazu.
Sensor Damps on T1, compared to Sensor Damps + Longpoint (nice addition!) and Cov Ops Cloak (nice addition!).
They both utilize Sensor Damps, thus the Celestis is a superb cheap alternative for doing Damping work. Other ships will have to point though, cause it lacks the Tech 2's bonus.

Arbitrator compared to Curse.
TD + Drones on T1, HEAVY CAPACITOR WARFARE ON THE BIG BROTHER, THAT IS SO POWERFUL THAT PEOPLE OFTEN IGNORE THE TD BONUS ON THEIR FITS TO CAPITALIZE MORE ON THE HEAVY, HEAVY CAP WARFARE.

The Arbitrator simply can't do it, no matter how hard you try.
Fitting the Arbitrator for capacitor warfare is thus against it's nature. It's like fitting an Abaddon for Capacitor Warfare.
NO. DON'T. DO. IT.

That way, your Arbitrator fits become a lot less PG hungry!
Focus on the TD, it's a strong, situational module.
If you can plan an engagement ahead - trust me, you can more often than you can't - the Arbitrator is a powerful ship that can punch up several classes.
Taking on a Tech 3 in a Arbitrator?
Good fight if well prepared!
NOmen? If i were the NOmen, i wouldn't go for an Arbitrator. That's because i know how devastating it can be to turret ships.
Maybe i'd hit it if i knew the pilot was not good / shitfit.

For solo, the Arb is a defensive ship. You can bring it if the enemies come into your space. They will most likely be happy if you undock an Arb and come play with them, because most of them will think it's easy prey.

For Gangs, the Arb is an excellent support ship. The ability to bring 3 bonused TDs to a fight and not pop the instant something coughs at you (hello Crucifier) means you can fully negate the dps potential of very heavy turret platforms, or can render up to 3 sniping Tier 3 useless for as long as they decide to stay on grid with you. This btw works against any combination of race, as long they are using turrets. Not like on the Blackbird, where you only are strong with the right racial jammers, or the Celestis where damps are basically useless in close combat.
No, TDs work against any race with turrets on every range in which the Arb can lock them up.


Very underrated ship.
Very powerful ship.

It's just about the pilot and how he decides to utilize it.

I did notice that power grid is same for all EWar cruisers for each faction like they tried to balance it but forgot to even out the CPU. The CPU was very far off the mark like as if it wanted to keep the faction CPU traits, but not faction power grid traits. If they flattening the power grid they should flatten CPU also. This is not fit based, just looking at the numbers... I am not even trying to fit anything to it, just saying looking at CPU and power grid comparisons of the T1 EWar ships. I am not trying to say CPU changes anything, but if the other EWar cruisers reduce CPU to match Arbitrator then it would be funny to see what can be done with those.

"If I dig up the zkillboard on a toon in a game where most people have three and drag it through the mud before throwing 'Q.E.D.' on the end, I can be the bestest forum warrior!"

The Arbitrator does just fine in the role of support and force-multiplication, which is what the whole line of EWar cruisers is for. Quit trying to make it a brawler, a DPS dumptruck, or a capacitor warfare platform; that isn't its job. That said, it would be more sensible if the drone damage bonus were a TD range one, but then I'd be wanting for a reduction in base TD range. They have really long ranges without a bonus as it is.

Arb is the only EWAR cruiser that can solo a T3, therefore it is the coolest EWAR cruiser.

Leaving tracking disruption to ships that are fast enough NOT to have the stuff they're jamming roll up and punch them in the d*ck seems a little more logical to me. Neuts are secondary ewar to tracking disruption; I would be fine with them doing the same thing to the other t1 boats to compensate, and giving caldari t2 ewar boats (excluding the falcon) a TD bonus to compensate somewhat.

To recap, in exchange for the arby getting a neut amount bonus over TD (not range, let's be realistic here)
-celestis gets damp bonus swapped for point range
-bellicose gets TP bonus swapped for web range
-blackbird gets ECM fixed by getting rid of racial ecm mods and changing them over to loaded scripts into the multispec
-all frigs keep their current bonuses, since weapon disruption works better on mobile platforms, and the cruisers have more direct combat related abilities to be exploited in fleets and small/solo pvp.
-strength for point and web range would either be 5-7.5% depending on potential power levels. I know the bell with a web range bonus could become obscene if it wasn't tuned correctly.

This does two things:
Firstly, it more clearly distinguishes the roles and strengths between frigate ewar boats and cruiser ewar boats, and gives them more particular roles to fill. The t2 boats are fine as they are, although as I stated previously, the rook and kitsune would get their cap usage bonus rolled into the ship's capacitor somewhat, and get target painter bonuses on top of the new ecm system. This would force pilots to choose to take advantage of the new slots for focusing on ecm and balancing it with a little shield tank, or focusing on support more with a target painter or two.

Secondly, it would allow the disruption cruisers to be more directly involved in pvp in fleets. Increasing their direct combat usability would make them more valuable usages of manpower, and provide more interesting gameplay options for them. Sure, keeping their fitting space underpowered is a good way to ensure they don't become overpowered, but generally we should see better balance with ewar. Damps are currently extremely powerful in the widest variety of pvp situations, while tracking disruption is best suited to skirmishes, and the caldari who use missiles most of the time do not have any ships other than the golem that possess bonuses to target painting.

A little power creep WOULD be healthy in this situation, since it helps clean up progression, focuses roles and what the ships themselves are good at, and would be a favorable way to balance ewar in the game without having to mess with the basic foundations of it too heavily.

EDIT:
Celestis with point range bonus would either get a cap usage bonus or a hybrid damage bonus. I would personally lean towards the latter.