Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I think an interesting balance to the rather lackluster lineup for most of the ewar cruisers (excluding the blackbird) would be to focus them on the secondary disruption characteristics of their t2 counterparts.
The frigates are ideal in the place they are right now for long-range disruption due to their mobility, but I think focusing the cruisers more towards a direct combat role suits their base characteristics more.

-Arbitrator goes from a 7.5% TD bonus to a 10% bonus to neut range per level. This will keep it UNDER t2 disruptor range so as to not become too OP, but make it very useful in brawls.

-Celestis gets a 5% bonus to scrambler and disruptor range per level. Would be good with multiple disruptors as fleet tackle in this setting, and could possibly gain an extra turret and a 5% firing rate bonus for some interesting firepower options.

If you think the bonuses are too much or too little, let me know. The idea is that the disruption frigates compliment the cruisers, and each perform their roles to the best of their ability (to which the frigates already do).

EDIT: webs on the bellicose seem like they would be deal-breaking, so I'm removing them from the equation here.

just no

get a t2, or bling out your t1. You gotta pay for that kind of effectiveness.

TIL that Celestis is lackluster?

Fluffers made a good point earlier about how OP it could be, and I wanted to tone it down a bit since it looked like it would be stepping on the toes of interceptors. A little extra point range is nice, and damps are better on fast ships like mauluses and kereses (keri?) that can keep their range up. I wouldn't be against turning it into a drone boat, but the gallente already have one in the vexor...

I don't support the proposed changes because the t1 e-war cruisers are quite powerful situationaly, while retaining a low cost and a great deal of flexibility. All four of them can be fit to be reasonably powerful force multipliers. They, couple with their combat t2 variants are some of the better examples of t1 -> t2 progression where t2 is more powerful but much less adaptable.

Good fit and good points. Do you think that even with reduced range bonuses, the proposed changes to the arbitrator and bellicose would reach out too far in this regard? I can see the bell being a menace to kiters with a moderately priced faction web, but not necessarily with neuts on the arbitrator; the ship generally has a bit of difficulty balancing medium neuts/nos with a hefty tank on the bottom due to its lower power grid, so it balances fairly well as it stands with its powergrid.
However...how much more often do you see people using TDs on the arby over neuts? It's a very effective setup, and while increasing the range would make them more powerful, I don't see it becoming as potentially game-breaking as say, a long-webbed bellicose.

In regards to the Celestis, it is pretty effective in the situation you're describing, but I see pretty much the same thing in caldari FW when fighting the gallente on a much smaller scale with mauluses. They're a terror on the battlefield in group because if they're flown right in groups they can shut down any lm or rail fit boat from kiting. The weird thing is they still tend to focus on flying blaster boats for some reason. I would be happy either way, but I still think a celestis with a point range bonus might be a little more effective in a wider variety of pvp situations than the current setup is.
It's a nice ship, but I just think it could use a little more direct combat focus, like the arby and bellicose have with their respective damage bonuses. How would you feel about it getting the point range bonus and a hybrid turret firing rate bonus, with 4 guns? One taken from the low shouldn't be too much trouble. I'd support something similar like a 10% kinetic damage bonus on 4 missile blackbird.

Mainly, I'm just convinced the frigates are superior disruption boats over the cruisers; they're much more mobile, they have better range dictation and projection, and they're more slippery targets to fight in a larger fleet setting. Other than more tank and better firepower, what advantages does the celestis have over the maulus in a fleet fight?

None but that's kinda the point isn't it? You can't really balance a T1 ship to be effective in all situations. The Celestis gets better sensor/tank/dps/cap, the Maulus is faster/cheaper/probably a bit more flexible, both have a use. That's pretty much all you can ask.

Really agree with the general sentiment too, some of these bonuses would be as oppressive as ECM in solo/small fights, there's a reason they're shoved on 200m/paper thin ships.

Is it the range or the strength on t2 and/or faction ships specifically that give them their oppressiveness, i.e. is web range more of a threat than web strength on a cruiser-sized ship?

Exactly true ^^ Ofc its situational but you're talking about increasing the range of neuts/webs, etc. at which point they **** over brawlers and kiters.

Its exactly the same sort of I Win, **** You problem people have with ECM, there are far too many situations where they'd just be uncounterable.

ok so webs are out...would neut range or amount on the arby and a small point range bonus on the celestis (with the celestis getting a 5% firing bonus for 4 guns) be acceptable?