These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tiamat - The Republic Supposedly Fights Back

Author
TheUnholyTerror
Tactical Grace.
Vanguard.
#1 - 2015-01-29 06:40:39 UTC  |  Edited by: TheUnholyTerror
So we are being given in Tiamat, the Minmatar tactical destroyer, small arty buff and autocannon tweak.
BUT, I feel if the Republic is really fighting back we need a few more modifications :P

First off, Artillery in general takes up too much powergrid for most of the ships it goes on. Dropping that down a bit would be great.

Second, take the utility high of the wolf, remove it, and instead give it a third midslot- there by making it more effective in just about every way. (Nos? Now cap booster. Neut? Well now that you can actually apply damage maybe you don't need to kill their tank.)

Third, give muninn 4th midslot- I could honestly care less about where it comes from (I'd prefer from highs) but it needs it.

Lastly, something needs to happen with the tempest. It has double damage bonus and doesn't do any damage due to application :P - so maybe up one of the damage bonuses by double - drop the other and replace with tracking bonus. That would benefit artillery and autocannon fits. Tempest also needs either another mid or another low, armor or shield tank is pretty weak as far as I've found . Though tracking bonus > extra mid or low slot.

Let me know what you guys think.
CCP please :P

(Edit): Any thoughts on having a third Artillery gun. There's 3 of most guns (Ion, Electron, Neutron, for example) but only 2 options for arty.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#2 - 2015-01-29 12:16:32 UTC
I came expecting a destroyer conversation. I left with the kitchen sink chasing me.

Small arty could use gentler fittings but many Minmatar ships need their fitting grids revisited as well. The Rifter has the worst grid of any combat frigate for example. The Jaguar is similarly bad.


A rebalance revisit to assault frigates has been hinted at. The Jaguar needs more love then the Wolf. (More PG, more cap, more armor, fourth turret). Other races have some old legacy bonuses in the class as well. (Ishkur I'm looking at you) I rather like the Wolf as is.

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#3 - 2015-01-29 13:01:07 UTC
If arty PG was reduced (mainly small/medium sizes), then Jag fitting wouldn't be so utterly terrible. In fact, a few of my fits would probably lose 1 fitting mod if they reduced PG by about 10%. At this point, i'd be happy with anything that effects arty PG though. 1-10% reduction is good with me.

People say, well minny need more PG. Not really, a/c fits tend to be ok on fitting. If you add more grid, then they get some silly tanks with autocannons. If you change arty PG, then you only affect arty fits. The few edge cases would be fitting 425's to stabbers/vagabonds and the like.

I also like the idea of a 3rd variant of arty. Maybe.. a 525mm? Better tracking, much less PG useage, and about the same dps at current 650's. Change 650's to have more alpha and that would allow arty to have more options for what the person is trying to do.

For the small, maybe 230mm? Same progression as mentioned earlier.
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#4 - 2015-01-29 13:31:10 UTC
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
I also like the idea of a 3rd variant of arty. Maybe.. a 525mm? Better tracking, much less PG useage, and about the same dps at current 650's. Change 650's to have more alpha and that would allow arty to have more options for what the person is trying to do.

Dual 720s would fit the usual progression - 720 damage, half 720 tracking...

There has never really been a call for the smallest artillery - but if you take a look at Dual 1500mm rails you can probably see why...

The high PG usage of Arties is a significant factor in balancing their high alpha - but it does make balancing minmatar ships very difficult (because you can load huge quantities of shield on a ship by stepping down to ACs).

The question is - what would provide a balance to the Alpha-strike capability of arties if they were much easier to fit?
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#5 - 2015-01-29 13:50:40 UTC
Artie's have the worst tracking and rate of fire. They are further inflexible with a 10 second reload timer. In any engagement you have to try to predict the range the fight will take place, the target's resistance profile, and wether or not tracking disruptors might be used further shortening your range. If you guess wrong on any of these with beams or rails you can reload quickly. If you guess wrong with artillery you're dead. I don't know if balancing a gentler fitting vs the alpha is really neccesary.

Rifter:
MWD, meta MSE, point- basic null sec tackle. You are forced to fit 150mm AC, leave the utility high empty, and still have to fight CPU issues fitting your lows. The fitting grid of the Merlin and Incursus are luxurious by comparison. It really is an issue.
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#6 - 2015-01-29 14:36:28 UTC
I've read some first reactions on the Svipul from people testing them on SiSi. They're already in love with the ship. I don't think we need any changes here.
TheUnholyTerror
Tactical Grace.
Vanguard.
#7 - 2015-01-29 15:59:04 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
I've read some first reactions on the Svipul from people testing them on SiSi. They're already in love with the ship. I don't think we need any changes here.


I wasn't saying to edit to Svipul in any way, I personally can't wait for the ship. Though there is a problem with tactical destroyers overshadowing the use of assault frigates, but it hasn't seemed to affect frigate fleets to much so we shall see.

Glad to see positive comments :P
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#8 - 2015-01-29 17:15:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
In my view of things, projectiles suffer from two problems:

1. The difference in PG requirements between artillery and autocannons is so great that any ship with enough grid to mount a good artillery fit is left with obscene amounts of PG left for other things if they mount autocannons. I think the solution here is not simply to reduce PG requirements for artillery, but to close the gap between artillery and autocannons by lowering the former and increasing the latter, along with a slight buff to PG across the Minmatar line to compensate. This would alleviate the "all or nothing" PG scenario we have now, while still limiting how much tank you can slap on a heavy artillery ship.

2. Autocannons, and to a lesser degree artillery, are heavily dependent on falloff, yet T1 projectile ammo doesn't modify falloff. The tracking bonus to certain ammo types is nice, but they typically come with a huge hit to damage. I firmly believe that T1 projectile ammo should have some, or all, of its optimal bonus moved over to a falloff bonus, and the optimal/falloff ranges of projectile weapons adjusted accordingly. This would give autocannons more meaningful selections when it comes to ammo choices (i.e. sacrifice damage for better range and tracking, not just better tracking) without severely impacting artillery performance.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#9 - 2015-01-30 19:01:20 UTC
Jacob Holland wrote:
Stitch Kaneland wrote:
I also like the idea of a 3rd variant of arty. Maybe.. a 525mm? Better tracking, much less PG useage, and about the same dps at current 650's. Change 650's to have more alpha and that would allow arty to have more options for what the person is trying to do.

Dual 720s would fit the usual progression - 720 damage, half 720 tracking...

There has never really been a call for the smallest artillery - but if you take a look at Dual 1500mm rails you can probably see why...

The high PG usage of Arties is a significant factor in balancing their high alpha - but it does make balancing minmatar ships very difficult (because you can load huge quantities of shield on a ship by stepping down to ACs).

The question is - what would provide a balance to the Alpha-strike capability of arties if they were much easier to fit?


Dual 720s? Wouldnt that be large sized, and not medium like 650s?

Large arty is fine (though i would not be opposed to a 3rd turret for more options). The balance for alpha strike is in the long reload.

Rails = dps
arty = alpha

If we compare the same scenario between the two, the drawback of arty is inherent in the reload. Lets say you land at 50-60km from a tackle frig. You have arty rupture. You lock him up as he burns toward you. Hes at 40km by the time you get done locking him. You shoot and miss. You now have 7seconds of reload until you shoot again. During that time, he sets up transversal and now outtracks you easily. GG ruppy.

Now lets take a similar fit thorax with rails. Same scenario. It misses first shot, but can probably get 2-3 more shots before frig sets up orbit. Plus rax has tracking bonus and is decently fast to maintain transversal. Not a garauntee the rax will kill him, but would be much easier to manage than with arty. Or at least force the frig off with a few hits.

Nothing worse than getting glancing shots with arty. Nothing like doing 140 damage with a group of 720s, just to wait 7-10s to shoot again.

That is already a pretty big disadvantage with the weapon system already. Why do they need absurd PG requirements too? The benefit of alpha, is that when well fit or with proper support, you can get good shots and take advantage of the alpha. Even then, ive only single shotted a handful of frigs, most had no tank. Otherwise it takes a few shots with arty. What you get on paper for arty, is very rarely what you get in game. Unless you are shooting a station or capital ship. Or the target is webbed and painted.
Aralieus
Shadowbane Syndicate
#10 - 2015-01-31 01:34:05 UTC
Man you minnie folks sure are greedy....first it was your freedom. Now you want buffs to your ships, I mean where does it end...seriously!

Oderint Dum Metuant

Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#11 - 2015-01-31 18:25:23 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
In my view of things, projectiles suffer from two problems:

1. The difference in PG requirements between artillery and autocannons is so great that any ship with enough grid to mount a good artillery fit is left with obscene amounts of PG left for other things if they mount autocannons. I think the solution here is not simply to reduce PG requirements for artillery, but to close the gap between artillery and autocannons by lowering the former and increasing the latter, along with a slight buff to PG across the Minmatar line to compensate. This would alleviate the "all or nothing" PG scenario we have now, while still limiting how much tank you can slap on a heavy artillery ship.

2. Autocannons, and to a lesser degree artillery, are heavily dependent on falloff, yet T1 projectile ammo doesn't modify falloff. The tracking bonus to certain ammo types is nice, but they typically come with a huge hit to damage. I firmly believe that T1 projectile ammo should have some, or all, of its optimal bonus moved over to a falloff bonus, and the optimal/falloff ranges of projectile weapons adjusted accordingly. This would give autocannons more meaningful selections when it comes to ammo choices (i.e. sacrifice damage for better range and tracking, not just better tracking) without severely impacting artillery performance.


We have a winner!