These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: The Svipul Tactical Destroyer andProjectile Changes

First post First post
Author
Laiannah Sahireen
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#101 - 2015-01-20 20:38:53 UTC
+1 to "Please give it a falloff bonus"
+1 to "Autocannons are still hopelessly outclassed, especially mediums"
Paddy Finn
Greater Order Of Destruction
#102 - 2015-01-20 20:39:57 UTC
Chessur wrote:
The Minny T3:

Why are we placing the MWD sig bonus in the defensive mode, and not leaving it intact for speed? So much more useful there- and useless in defense.

Using MWD only on this ship is really a let down. Confessor is so strong because of its ability to fit 10MN abs, to try and make up for the ****** speed / sig ratio that all destroyers (With out innate sig reduction) share. I am not sure the minny version is going to like being shoehorned into MWD only, if it wants to take advantage of all its ship bonuses.

I am concerned with no range increase, or falloff bonuses while in sniper. Also really concerned about no falloff bonus in general. Are we ok with forcing this into arty only alpha thrasher T2?

Doesn't have enough grid. 1mn MWD with a full rack of 280's is already 85.2 PWG. T3 gets 78 base? Are you kidding?


As for the projectile changes.

Arty changes look ok.

Ac changes on the other hand....

They need so much more love than 7.5% base falloff increase. This is not going to fix Medium AC's or small AC's. At the end of they day, they do such little damage up close- and are anemic at range. Please don't try and hit me with 'selectable damage' as a huge pro. Because that is just simply not the case when you are kiting with AC's. These paltry changes (even on falloff boats like the stabber / vaga / cyna) Are still not going to make up for the fact that they have anemic DPS at 24+K and because of that are forced to use barrage. The barrage changes are not helping the matter, if range / dps is staying similar. While a step in the right direction, WAY more needs to be done in order to address Small and medium AC's. The only thing this change will have, is give Large AC's (Tornado and particularly the Mach) A slight boost.



I fully endorse this post
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
#103 - 2015-01-20 20:45:04 UTC
Keras Authion wrote:
The resistances seem a bit high compared to the confessor. Did someone forget the defensive mode on?
Nope, that's right. Look at the base resist profile on the Heretic and Sabre. The light interdictors and D3s have the same base resist profiles.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#104 - 2015-01-20 20:52:23 UTC
I do support switching out the base optimal bonus for a fallof bonus. The optimal bonus can be moved and reduced slightly to sniping mode, while not leaving auto cannons in a lesser state than artilleries.
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#105 - 2015-01-20 20:56:26 UTC
Arty changes are good. Though i have a question.

If rails are dps orientated and arty about alpha, why does arty also suffer from horrendous fitting? The risk/reward is already in the weapon system. Less tracking and very long RoF. Why are they (small and med arty) also hard as **** to fit?

For example, lets say youre trying to track a frig with medium rails/arty. If rails miss, its only 3-5 seconds till their next shot. If arty misses, its 7-10s (depending on ship/fit). That is a lot of time for a frig to get under your guns and ruin your day. So, you are completely vulnerable in that time frame. Yet, then they take a large amount of grid to fit, so you have less tank and utility for defense/survivability in that encounter.

Also, 650 arty is garbage. We dont need a "dps" orientated arty. Arty is alpha. 650s should have much better alpha than they do now to distance them from rails. 250s are only a few hundred volley away from 650 alpha.

Anyway, off topic there.

I agree, needs an optimal + falloff bonus to make ac and arty fits viable. That would actually let arty extend close to its sniper mode ranges.
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#106 - 2015-01-20 21:02:13 UTC  |  Edited by: ergherhdfgh
Oreb Wing wrote:
Arden Elenduil wrote:
Personally I think the Svipul would be much better served with a 50% bonus to falloff instead of optimal.
Plays into the strengths of projectiles much better.



Fall off bonus on top of the turret with the highest FO values? And i thought the Garmur was OP. Leave the suggested ammo change +1.

Gate Camp thrasher is now more OP, maybe now i can drop a gyro for a TE, but even then it will still hit frigs within elbow range with tracking bonus.

Resist profile was prob just a mistake with a terrifying shield 50 / 40 / 40 / 50. And why bonus defensive mode to all shield AND armor?

Have you ever flown a projectile based ship before? This optimal bonus is the equivalent of telling the minmatar ship pilots "we decided not to give a damage bonus". I mean if you look at other ship classes a damage and activation cost bonus are pretty typical for lazors but Minmatar usually get 2 damage bonus which are something like damage and falloff or damage and tracking or damage and RoF.

So I have not done the math since the rebalancing but I don't think the weapons themselves have changed that much anyhow the way things used to be projectiles had the lowest damage compared to the other turrets. They had typically the worst tracking especially when compared to intended range and also projectile ships often mixed weapons systems so any damage bonuses or damage modules only applied to a portion of your damage.

Now I am not complaining that projectiles suck or anything I'm just saying when you look at the weapon systems as a whole comparitively they all have their strengths and weaknesses and are fairly well balanced. This current bonus to the Matar T3 dessie however goes outside the historical norms which have proven themselves to work well IMHO.

I guess it's a bit early to say how this stacks up to all the other T3 diessies since this is only the second one but the confessor bonus is more inline with other Amarr ships. If anything I would think that this would make more sense if you switched the two bonuses around. Make the optimal bonus for sharpshooter mode and the tracking bonus for the Tactical dessie skill bonus.

Edit: I forgot to add on top of lowest damage projectiles do most of their damage in falloff which reduces it even further.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli

Alexis Nightwish
#107 - 2015-01-20 21:08:37 UTC
Quote:
Minmatar Tactical Destroyer Bonuses Per Level:
10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret damage
10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret optimal range
5% reduction in heat damage generated by modules

Sharpshooter Mode:
33.3% bonus to Small Projectile Turret tracking while Sharpshooter Mode is active
100% bonus to sensor strength, scan resolution and targeting range while Sharpshooter Mode is active


Since "Sharpshooter Mode" is really Anti-Ewar Mode, why not drop the hull's optimal bonus in favor of an agility bonus or something, and put a 25% falloff and optimal bonus into "Sharpshooter".

This way "Sharpshooter" gains resistance to both modes of TD instead of just one, can justifiably be called Sharpshooter, and solves the problem of shoehorning the Svipul as an arty-only boat.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Cj Allyn
Un4seen Development
Sev3rance
#108 - 2015-01-20 21:12:01 UTC
Please for the eve gods sake dont invert it in sniper and defensive mode i dont want to fly a floating tripod please or a unicycle sniper should spread the front to like a firing platform and the defensive mode should be similar to the confessor more subtle prop mode looks so freaking cool though
Argent Rotineque
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2015-01-20 21:14:05 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
also isn't this a 2.5% falloff nerf when using barrage?


The bonuses are multiplicative 1.075 x 1.4 = 1.505 Barrage stays basically the same, but all other autocannon ammo gets a 7.5% falloff buff.
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#110 - 2015-01-20 21:16:20 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
Arty changes are good. Though i have a question.

If rails are dps orientated and arty about alpha, why does arty also suffer from horrendous fitting? The risk/reward is already in the weapon system. Less tracking and very long RoF. Why are they (small and med arty) also hard as **** to fit?

For example, lets say youre trying to track a frig with medium rails/arty. If rails miss, its only 3-5 seconds till their next shot. If arty misses, its 7-10s (depending on ship/fit). That is a lot of time for a frig to get under your guns and ruin your day. So, you are completely vulnerable in that time frame. Yet, then they take a large amount of grid to fit, so you have less tank and utility for defense/survivability in that encounter.

Also, 650 arty is garbage. We dont need a "dps" orientated arty. Arty is alpha. 650s should have much better alpha than they do now to distance them from rails. 250s are only a few hundred volley away from 650 alpha.

Anyway, off topic there.

I agree, needs an optimal + falloff bonus to make ac and arty fits viable. That would actually let arty extend close to its sniper mode ranges.

The largest beam Lazors are also very hard to fit. Alpha is alpha and it has it's good points but also it's bad. I am most familiar with large turrets so not sure if this scales but here we go:

So 1400mm attys have half the clip size of 1200s and have **** tracking and also as you have pointed out crazy high cycle time. Because of that in most PvE situations the 1200's are a much better option. They have a 10 second reload less often. Have less overkill with the lower alpha and hit much better due to the tracking. So the 1200s are far from useless as a matter of fact I would say the 1400's are more of a niche thing that are good in PvP Alpha fleets and not much else.

I am assuming it is something similar with the medium and small attys.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#111 - 2015-01-20 21:29:03 UTC
Argent Rotineque wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
also isn't this a 2.5% falloff nerf when using barrage?


The bonuses are multiplicative 1.075 x 1.4 = 1.505 Barrage stays basically the same, but all other autocannon ammo gets a 7.5% falloff buff.


hmm.. good too know ... so it will make about as much difference as it did with lasers/scorch change .. which is pretty much nothing ..... i wish they would make stronger changes .. why not 30% barrage/scorch/Null ? and then add the rest into the guns.. it would be nice if the changes actually made a difference.. 30% void/conflag/hail ... ammo in general needs a good revision..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Rapiid
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2015-01-20 21:32:03 UTC
Hello devs, dunno if u have played mim lately but god damn that optimal range bonus is amazing now my emp from small guns with 1k optimal can do 1.5k Shocked.... Please replace it with something actually usefull like falloff buff or tracking.
If u get the time maybe fix the autocanno hit consistancyQuestion That would be niceAttention (and if u dont know what i mean go shoot a customs office with any autocannon with the log window open)
Straife Jacket
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#113 - 2015-01-20 21:34:11 UTC
Please stop giving optimal range bonuses to minmatar hulls *cough* jaguar *cough*. You wouldn't give an amarr ship a falloff bonus...

the sharpshooter tracking bonus is interesting, but again heavily skewed toward artillery use. Of couse autocannons love tracking too, but without a sharpshooting range bonus, the times you would want tracking from sharpshooter (scram range), you would likely be far better served by either defense or GTFO.

the AC falloff change is interesting and will definitely help stabber/vaga to spend less time shooting explosive damage at shield kiters. 425mm cyna will be even more dominant over the vaga now but I'm not complaining, my vaga hulls are just getting a tad dusty :) more pg on the vaga anyone?
Jennifer en Marland
Shiny Violent Killing Toys
Astral Battles
#114 - 2015-01-20 21:45:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jennifer en Marland
I've been really looking forward to this unpronounceable Viking thing; the main thing I've been thinking while waiting for the stats to be released is 'Please have 5 mid/3 low, instead of the awful 4/4 slot layout that contributes to the Jaguar being so awful...'

Sad

I really hope someone can persuade me I'm wrong...The way I see it, 4/4 is not enough mids for a more 'serious' shield tank (like MASB + invuln or double MASB) plus prop, scram, web, like on a 'proper' T2 shield ship (Harpy, Hawk, Flycatcher). 4 lows is enough for a proper armour tank, or a slightly improper tank plus damage mod, but there isn't anything I'd massively want in the utility mid.

Whereas, if has 5 mid/3 low, it can at least do shield tanking really really well. (I'm not saying 3mid/5 low because I'm assuming the Caldari T3 will be shield and the Gallente will be armour, so that would give us 3 armour tanked T3s and only one shield).

I'm also adding my support for falloff instead of optimal in the hull bonus.

EDIT: The autocannon changes seem far too small to make any difference. And if there are no significant changes now, I worry about how long it'll take CCP to get around to looking at autos again What?

Army of dolls stole all your perfect imperfections.

Rapiid
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#115 - 2015-01-20 21:54:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Rapiid
Jennifer en Marland wrote:
I've been really looking forward to this unpronounceable Viking thing; the main thing I've been thinking while waiting for the stats to be released is 'Please have 5 mid/3 low, instead of the awful 4/4 slot layout that contributes to the Jaguar being so awful...'

Sad

I really hope someone can persuade me I'm wrong...The way I see it, 4/4 is not enough mids for a more 'serious' shield tank (like MASB + invuln or double MASB) plus prop, scram, web, like on a 'proper' T2 shield ship (Harpy, Hawk, Flycatcher). 4 lows is enough for a proper armour tank, or a slightly improper tank plus damage mod, but there isn't anything I'd massively want in the utility mid.

Whereas, if has 5 mid/3 low, it can at least do shield tanking really really well. (I'm not saying 3mid/5 low because I'm assuming the Caldari T3 will be shield and the Gallente will be armour, so that would give us 3 armour tanked T3s and only one shield).

I'm also adding my support for falloff instead of optimal in the hull bonus.

EDIT: The autocannon changes seem far too small to make any difference. And if there are no significant changes now, I worry about how long it'll take CCP to get around to looking at autos again What?



CCP Please look at ac's
Chrysaetus
Mollin Material Research and Excavation
#116 - 2015-01-20 22:11:01 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svipul

Just out of curiosity...
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#117 - 2015-01-20 22:43:34 UTC
Gosti Kahanid wrote:
Theon Severasse wrote:
Would like to see the optimal range bonus swapped to a falloff bonus to actually make it useful.

Arden Elenduil wrote:
Personally I think the Svipul would be much better served with a 50% bonus to falloff instead of optimal.
Plays into the strengths of projectiles much better.


Maybe a Bonus to both, optimal and falloff, so Autocannons AND Artillery can fully utilize it?

yeah; falloff as the main hull bonus, and optimal on the sniper mode. That way it's not shoehorned into using arty.
Zauri Hanaya
Abrigolandia
#118 - 2015-01-20 23:08:34 UTC
This ship has:

Dps+Range+Shield bonus+Armor bonus+Reduction microwarp penalty IN THE SAME MODE.



THIS IS OP!


Confessor is funny because you need change the modes! this ship has the best in ONE!


Remove the range bonus in base stats!!!!!
Mario Putzo
#119 - 2015-01-20 23:22:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Svipul, Old Norse.Mythology Valkyrie

Means Changeable (fitting for a variable ship)

Depending on the dialect of origin the S could be completely silent or it could be pronounced as a Z.

Vih~Pull
Zvih-Pull

Still there are other dialects of old norse that also pronounced V as W. Which gives us

Wih-Pull
Zwih-Pull


I am leaning towards Zvih~pull. Based on Iceland. But who knows could be completely irrelevant based on its historical meaning.

Could even be ZveyePull ZweyePull too. Lots of variants. Please Fozzie how do we say it!.
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#120 - 2015-01-20 23:24:38 UTC
This one does seem to be an odd bug. Optimal bonus pushes it towards arty which when combined with microwarp forces a shield tank due to lack of pwg for armor leaving a useless armor bonus. Whatever way I piece it together it seems to come out confused rather than flexible.