These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Minmatar T2 Changes

Author
Acel Tokalov
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2014-12-23 00:54:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Acel Tokalov
Seeing as it is pretty apparent that basically the entire Minmatar combat ship and Projectile lines need to have an overhaul to bring them into balance with the other racial lines I want to suggest a few changes to the Minmatar line.

First changing the Thukker Mix ships (Jaguar, Vagabond, Panther) into missile ships. Minmatar are currently the only race that doesn't have an alternate T2 weapon type while all the others have their respective turret weapons and drones/missiles. Changing Thukker ships to use missiles would help them significantly because the specialty of Thukker ships is speed, so converting them to missile would take away the handicap of them out tracking their own turrets, and it would give Minmatar pilots another weapon platform to use besides projectile on the higher skill end because as it stands using turrets as your primary offensive skill is your only viable option with the Minmatar line once you advance past T1 ships.

Second change to the Minmatar line. Make all ships capable of being shield tanked, with a few balanced enough to possibly armor tank. Based on assumption of the races preferences Gallente and Amarr are armor tank ships while Caldari and Minmatar are shield which stands for much of all the races lines except Minmatar. Primarily the Wolf and Muninn, which have slot layouts that are closer to Amarr than other Minmatar ships. Some other ships being the Hyena, Rupture, and Hurricane.

Finally instead of an optimal or falloff bonus give all the Minmatar combat ships a combined bonus. This would have relatively little effect on autocannons, seeing as their optimal is negligible to start with while giving a ship equipped with artillery a reasonable range compared to beams and rails. For example a 720mm Arty has a base of 24km and 18km falloff, and with all turret skills at 5 that becomes 30km and 22km with the effective range being ~38km without sacrificing too much damage. Now if you give a ship like a Muninn a 10% bonus to optimal and falloff instead of just optimal you would give a full skill AC Muninn a mid level ammo range of 4.5 km optimal, 18km falloff, and effective range of ~10km, while at the same time an Arty Muninn would have 45km optimal, 33km falloff, and effective range of ~55km. This change would allow any Minmatar ship with a range bonus to effectively use both autocannons and artillery without being overpowered because while you are adding to both optimal and falloff, any bonus to the falloff range is really only as effective as ~25% of the optimal bonus to actually adding to the range of the turret.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2014-12-23 00:59:37 UTC
Why?
Atomeon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2014-12-23 01:08:00 UTC
All those changes are good, but you really wanna train 2 weapon systems? And how about the newcomers (Rookies) . They will need 2 times more to fly a t2 ship (Also for old players too).
I dont think is a good idea. Also a must to train is at least having T2 drones. 3 weapon systems for a t2 ship....
Acel Tokalov
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-12-23 01:08:31 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?


Your question is rather vague. Care to specify?
Acel Tokalov
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-12-23 01:11:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Acel Tokalov
Atomeon wrote:
All those changes are good, but you really wanna train 2 weapon systems? And how about the newcomers (Rookies) . They will need 2 times more to fly a t2 ship (Also for old players too).
I dont think is a good idea. Also a must to train is at least having T2 drones. 3 weapon systems for a t2 ship....


It is the same though with all the other races. With Gallente you can specialize in either drone or hybrid, Caldari are hybrid/missile, and Amarr can really do laser/drone/missile. The problem with Minmatar is that they do have a T1 missile ship line (Breecher, Talwar, Bellicose, Cyclone, Typhoon) but don't have a T2 line which really only consists of the Claymore, and soon the Rapier (which isn't really a combat ship).
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#6 - 2014-12-23 02:13:07 UTC
Or you could just take your dirty, Caldari tainted missile loving hands off my decent ships.


-1. Missile vagabond concept makes me sad.
Sigras
Conglomo
#7 - 2014-12-23 02:37:50 UTC
Acel Tokalov wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?

Your question is rather vague. Care to specify?

YOU are the one proposing the change, the burden of proof is on YOU to tell us why the change needs to happen...

And no, "for the sake of something different" isnt a good reason for a change.
Acel Tokalov
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2014-12-23 02:53:17 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Acel Tokalov wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?

Your question is rather vague. Care to specify?

YOU are the one proposing the change, the burden of proof is on YOU to tell us why the change needs to happen...

And no, "for the sake of something different" isnt a good reason for a change.


I never said for the sake of something different, I was saying that Minmatar combat line is basically garbage at the moment, and I was proposing a way to FIX it.

Danika's question of "Why?" is a bad question. If I am writing 3 paragraphs explaining how my changes would help a currently sub par line and you respond with a one word question I think asking for a little elaboration is not unfair.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#9 - 2014-12-23 03:01:53 UTC
Acel Tokalov wrote:


Finally instead of an optimal or falloff bonus give all the Minmatar combat ships a combined bonus. This would have relatively little effect on autocannons, seeing as their optimal is negligible to start with while giving a ship equipped with artillery a reasonable range compared to beams and rails. For example a 720mm Arty has a base of 24km and 18km falloff, and with all turret skills at 5 that becomes 30km and 22km with the effective range being ~38km without sacrificing too much damage. Now if you give a ship like a Muninn a 10% bonus to optimal and falloff instead of just optimal you would give a full skill AC Muninn a mid level ammo range of 4.5 km optimal, 18km falloff, and effective range of ~10km, while at the same time an Arty Muninn would have 45km optimal, 33km falloff, and effective range of ~55km. This change would allow any Minmatar ship with a range bonus to effectively use both autocannons and artillery without being overpowered because while you are adding to both optimal and falloff, any bonus to the falloff range is really only as effective as ~25% of the optimal bonus to actually adding to the range of the turret.


I like this idea.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Sigras
Conglomo
#10 - 2014-12-23 03:01:55 UTC
Acel Tokalov wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Acel Tokalov wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?

Your question is rather vague. Care to specify?

YOU are the one proposing the change, the burden of proof is on YOU to tell us why the change needs to happen...

And no, "for the sake of something different" isnt a good reason for a change.


I never said for the sake of something different, I was saying that Minmatar combat line is basically garbage at the moment, and I was proposing a way to FIX it.

Danika's question of "Why?" is a bad question. If I am writing 3 paragraphs explaining how my changes would help a currently sub par line and you respond with a one word question I think asking for a little elaboration is not unfair.

I believe he was the one asking for more elaboration. Usually when balance changes or fixes are proposed, the person proposing them:
1. demonstrates a problem with the way the game currently is
2. states the change they propose to fix the problem from #1
3. states why their proposed change will fix the problem from #1

You did #2 fairly well, but you did not convince me that there actually is a problem therefore I see no need for this change thus leading me to ask the question "why?"

More specifically "why would we go through the trouble of changing people's ships around (which inevitably ticks them off) to fix a non-existent problem?"
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#11 - 2014-12-23 03:05:07 UTC
Acel Tokalov wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Acel Tokalov wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?

Your question is rather vague. Care to specify?

YOU are the one proposing the change, the burden of proof is on YOU to tell us why the change needs to happen...

And no, "for the sake of something different" isnt a good reason for a change.


I never said for the sake of something different, I was saying that Minmatar combat line is basically garbage at the moment, and I was proposing a way to FIX it.

Danika's question of "Why?" is a bad question. If I am writing 3 paragraphs explaining how my changes would help a currently sub par line and you respond with a one word question I think asking for a little elaboration is not unfair.


Let's go take a look at all the wonderful missile options out there for PvP, shall we?

Um.... Caracal. Well ok. Not amazing, but it's decent.
Talwar, wait Minmatar already has it.
Any others? Cause most of the missile ships out there are in PvP, mediocre at best.

Now Jag, and Vagabond, and Panther? You know what they all share?

THEY ARE ALREADY DECENT SHIPS, FREQUENTLY USED.

Can we please not take what are already fairly balanced, decent, frequently used ships in low and null sec and switch their primary missile systems to missiles? Cause that path leads to them being trash.

-12
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#12 - 2014-12-23 03:11:00 UTC
i'd support a missile huginn or rapier...for obvious reasons.

oh wait...

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#13 - 2014-12-23 03:14:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Rawketsled
I like the fact that Minmatar has a mixup of shield tanked boats and armour tanked boats. That makes them unique. Making them shield-only removes a lot of the racial flavour they have.

The Thukker speed argument is novel, but boosting tracking speed is also a solution... especially given that the Jag's bonuses already include tracking speed. Also, you can claim that speedy ships are kitey ships. Kitey ships don't need tracking bonues... they need falloff bonuses.
Acel Tokalov
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2014-12-23 03:50:11 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Acel Tokalov wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Acel Tokalov wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:
Why?

Your question is rather vague. Care to specify?

YOU are the one proposing the change, the burden of proof is on YOU to tell us why the change needs to happen...

And no, "for the sake of something different" isnt a good reason for a change.


I never said for the sake of something different, I was saying that Minmatar combat line is basically garbage at the moment, and I was proposing a way to FIX it.

Danika's question of "Why?" is a bad question. If I am writing 3 paragraphs explaining how my changes would help a currently sub par line and you respond with a one word question I think asking for a little elaboration is not unfair.

I believe he was the one asking for more elaboration. Usually when balance changes or fixes are proposed, the person proposing them:
1. demonstrates a problem with the way the game currently is
2. states the change they propose to fix the problem from #1
3. states why their proposed change will fix the problem from #1

You did #2 fairly well, but you did not convince me that there actually is a problem therefore I see no need for this change thus leading me to ask the question "why?"

More specifically "why would we go through the trouble of changing people's ships around (which inevitably ticks them off) to fix a non-existent problem?"



Well as for demonstrating that there is a problem I think that the market and general opinion of players already has. The fact that of all the racial lines, Minmatar combat ships move the slowest on the market and for the least amount of money next to other ships of the same class and the fact that the general consensus from many players that I have talked to is that they are bad ships because you can fly something from one of the other races in any situation you require and be more effective.

As far as point 3, the changes I suggest will give Minmatar 1. An alternate offensive weapon type for its T2 ships as it is the only race to not have one currently. 2. Making Minmatar shield tank only changes a small number of ships, mainly the Wolf and Muninn both of which are underutilized at the moment and having an armor tank on a line of ships that are supposed to be the fastest does not make sense. 3. The projectile bonus change would fix issues like the Jaguar having an optimal range yet unable to fit artillery, or allow the Muninn to more effectively use autocannons.
Acel Tokalov
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2014-12-23 03:51:58 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
i'd support a missile huginn or rapier...for obvious reasons.

oh wait...


Rapier is going to be a missile ship, the Huginn is going to be projectile.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#16 - 2014-12-23 06:37:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
CCP would probably nerf speed if mass conversions to missile boats and shields took place.
.

You see...if ccp wanted really fast shield tanked missile boats caldari would not be in the losers bracket of the paper quartermile runs for a decent part of the lineup. Armour has a tendency to get speed boosts to counter balance if only a little the slapping on of plates.

If ccp would have deemed a 357 m/s (base hull speed) hawk with missiles balanced....we'd have it. It got 273 m/s. Just not seeing them saying lets give it to jaguar here. Or wolf at 329 m/s.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2014-12-23 08:31:43 UTC
Projectiles are infinitely better than all missiles which aren't light. Trust me.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2014-12-23 08:44:32 UTC
I shall reiterate again. It is not that minmatar AC are horrible. They were great until one thing happened. RAILS and Blasters got OVERBUFFED. And they covered COMPLETELY all engagement capabilities of AC. THere is no scenario were an AC boat will not be outdone by rails or Blasters ( blasters already do it all by themselves in 90% of engagement envelope).



THe problem are OVER buffed hybrids with vastly superior gallente platforms due to tiercide being clearly favoring gallente.


JUst check the simple example of hyperion. That had 8 highs 5 mids 6 lows. The same lousy layout as the tempest and suffered as well. Nothing is really done for the tempest. But for the hyperion they went to the level of giving it a 10% DAMAGE bonus per level to drop to 6 turrets and free slots, all that while keeping a powerful repair bonus with 7 lows. While for the tempest.. for some reason, even with players askign for years, it is not doable to buff it anyway. It needs to spend BOTH its bonuses BOTH to even still have LESS damage capability than the hyperion, WAY less whiel fielding a MASSIVELY worse tank.


THe lack of justice of the current game designers when balancing gallente is appalling. All the balancing on the last 2 years have been so heavily biased, between hybrids, drone modules and clearly overpowered gallente hulls, that it is just a JOKE now.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2014-12-23 08:46:12 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Projectiles are infinitely better than all missiles which aren't light. Trust me.



aaa no, sorry wrong. Cruise missiles are great , HAMS are VERY VERY powerful (just avoid engaging frigates with them). For one reason we use missiles and blasters a lot and NEVER any AC. MIssiles are the second best weapon system, behind the overpowered hybrids.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Elena Morin'staal
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2014-12-23 10:13:00 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

THe lack of justice of the current game designers when balancing gallente is appalling. All the balancing on the last 2 years have been so heavily biased, between hybrids, drone modules and clearly overpowered gallente hulls, that it is just a JOKE now.


I wouldn't call it a lack of justice. Minmatar used to be awesome, too awesome in fact. We needed to be balanced, but as a result other stuff is now much stronger. So yeah, we need a fix - the TE balance really hurt us, although I don't disagree that it was needed.

Rails and drones are simply where Minmatar were years ago.

Also, don't you dare make my Vaga a missile boat. NEVER.
123Next page