These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[April] [Updated] Confessor and Svipul Balance Tweaks

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#81 - 2015-04-02 11:38:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Mizhir
Good changes, but I fear that the Svipul nerfs will hit mwd arty fits much harder than the 10mn auto fits which are the biggest problem about the ship right now.

Edit: The capacitor nerf on the confessor will also nerf the nano fits way more than the dualrep brawl fits.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2015-04-02 12:08:00 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Regarding the Confessor, please increase the cpu by around 10 so we don't have to rely on implants, rigs or crap mods.


Which current setup doesn't fit CPU-wise? Shocked

I have DLP 10MN dual rep, DLB 10MN AAR and their equivalents with 1MN MWD in mind - All fit. I'll be honest - haven't tried SFP/Bs at all, because I'm a 10MN AB nanufaget. Bear


I use a passive fit but perhaps a active might work better... Still, the active one i have just made runs into cpu issues.

What dps are you getting or better yet, can i see your fit?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Drew Li
Space Exploitation Inc
#83 - 2015-04-02 12:18:33 UTC
Ned Thomas wrote:
Drew Li wrote:
Slightly off topic, but could you add a rig that reduces the powergrid of propulsion modules? That could allow a handful of ships to fit oversized prop mods, possibly even 100mn battlecruisers. That would still allow 10mn T3 destroyers, but they would be giving up rig slots to do so. The rigs would have to be more effective than stacking on a bunch of current routers and reactor controls to get grid.


..............you can't be serious.

What's wrong with the suggestion? Granted the ability wouldn't be on par with what the status quo, but it would provide some interesting combinations. Even for the T3 destroyers you would be trading 37.5% of your EHP for an oversized prop mod, poor cap stability, and worse agility. Along with the proposed speed/agility changes that is a substantial hit. As for other hulls, there are very few that would have the cap stability or other necessary fitting requirements to make effective fits. HACs and T3s are the only platforms that would reasonably attempt it.

Ned Thomas wrote:
The Sabre is more used than the Heretic.

That has a lot to do with why the Svipul is used more than the Confessor.

If you look at them both individually, they have a roughly 10 to 1 kill to death ratio. They're in pretty much the same place.

I'd say the primary reason is that the only comparable ship being equal to a T3 destroyer is another destroyer. So you have one that deals EM/Therm damage shooting at the other with a ~90% EM/Therm resist and the ability to shoot any damage type. Not to mention more mids for tackle.
Stalence
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#84 - 2015-04-02 12:27:14 UTC
Firstly, I'll caveat what follows with I can speak from my experiences flying with and fighting against these hulls in low sec. I have no idea how these ships are being used in other areas of space or what their meta looks like there.

That said, the Confessor changes though are too harsh. The Confessor is actually a very challenging ship to fly as it is today. It's also quite vulnerable to neuts and tracking disrupters. I would urge you to remove the cap recharge nerf altogether on the ship and dial back the other nerfs to the ship considerably. Especially if you're nerfing cap rechargewhile simultaneously pushing people towards a 1MN MWD instead of a 10MN AB, the ship will have a tough time fitting into the speed meta in low sec and see virtually no usage after people expend their current stock of hulls.

I can however see the rationale for the Svipul changes. That ship is beyond over-powered at the moment. So while I love flying the Svipul right now, I agree that significant changes need to be made. Most noticeably to remove the dual armor rep fits.

Regarding price, I can see the rationale for the price increase for all D3s, I'm okay with this. In particular, I think it will help in steering more people into fielding T1 cruisers or assault frigates instead of D3s for some engagements. As it was, I think D3s were overshadowing those two groups for a bit there in the cost vs performance math we all do in our head before undocking.

Member of #tweetfleet @stalence // Templis CALSF // YouTube Channel
Canon Makanen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#85 - 2015-04-02 12:44:33 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
The Confessor changes are *okay*.
I'd much prefer the ship to be slower still.

The Svipul changes are a joke.
The grid nerf does very little other than hinder artillery fits. AC fits are still broken as ****.
The speed nerf is laughable. What is that, 10% when overloaded in speed mode?
The Svipul needs to be SLAPPED.


Perhaps the more important question is, what the hell are these ships supposed to be comparable to?
Even @ 50mil, the insurance payout makes them comparable to T1 Cruisers (with T2 mods), which other than a gimp fit, are woefully inept when it comes to taking on even a single T3D.

Hell, even with dual webs, a vanilla Svipul can still chug along @ 400+m/s in defensive mode
No cruiser is tracking that.

And you want to give us more?
Keep the nerfs coming.



totally agree, the powergrid nerf is just simple hinder the artillery fits. 10AB and dual ASB still very easy to fit by changing one powergrid rig.
Niden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2015-04-02 13:10:39 UTC
Stalence wrote:
Firstly, I'll caveat what follows with I can speak from my experiences flying with and fighting against these hulls in low sec. I have no idea how these ships are being used in other areas of space or what their meta looks like there.

That said, the Confessor changes though are too harsh. The Confessor is actually a very challenging ship to fly as it is today. It's also quite vulnerable to neuts and tracking disrupters. I would urge you to remove the cap recharge nerf altogether on the ship and dial back the other nerfs to the ship considerably. Especially if you're nerfing cap rechargewhile simultaneously pushing people towards a 1MN MWD instead of a 10MN AB, the ship will have a tough time fitting into the speed meta in low sec and see virtually no usage after people expend their current stock of hulls.

I can however see the rationale for the Svipul changes. That ship is beyond over-powered at the moment. So while I love flying the Svipul right now, I agree that significant changes need to be made. Most noticeably to remove the dual armor rep fits.

Regarding price, I can see the rationale for the price increase for all D3s, I'm okay with this. In particular, I think it will help in steering more people into fielding T1 cruisers or assault frigates instead of D3s for some engagements. As it was, I think D3s were overshadowing those two groups for a bit there in the cost vs performance math we all do in our head before undocking.



So much this.

<3 Stalence

/N

Moira corp | Villore Accords | Gallente militia |  Lowlife on Crossing Zebras | @Niden_GMVA
Oddsodz
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2015-04-02 13:29:17 UTC
Did anybody just stop to think that the reason lots of players are using D3's is because they are good and FUN? And FUN is the reason for playing the game right? Just because lots of players are enjoying a ship SHOULD NOT mean that is has to have a nerf. I Am not a fan of any changes to the current D3's. I feel it is just another nerf to stuff I like but still failing to fix bigger issues like OGB that I hate. I Can deal with a hull cost increase. I feel that is justified. But to change any of the stats for the ship on how it flies is just a move backwards. The thing that folks like about the D3's is just how many way you CAN fit it. Same goes for when you want to kill one too. You just don't know what you are going up against until you are on grid and looking at it to see if it is shield or amour tanked, Arty or Autos, Beams, pulse. That is part of the fun of this ship.

TL'DR

Why nerf the fun things that players find fun?
Cade Windstalker
#88 - 2015-04-02 13:43:47 UTC
Oddsodz wrote:
Did anybody just stop to think that the reason lots of players are using D3's is because they are good and FUN? And FUN is the reason for playing the game right? Just because lots of players are enjoying a ship SHOULD NOT mean that is has to have a nerf. I Am not a fan of any changes to the current D3's. I feel it is just another nerf to stuff I like but still failing to fix bigger issues like OGB that I hate. I Can deal with a hull cost increase. I feel that is justified. But to change any of the stats for the ship on how it flies is just a move backwards. The thing that folks like about the D3's is just how many way you CAN fit it. Same goes for when you want to kill one too. You just don't know what you are going up against until you are on grid and looking at it to see if it is shield or amour tanked, Arty or Autos, Beams, pulse. That is part of the fun of this ship.

TL'DR

Why nerf the fun things that players find fun?


Because a large part of the reason T3 Dessies are so fun right now is that they're at a significant advantage compared to the majority of things that have any chance of engaging one that doesn't want to be engaged. After this change they're still going to be fun, but they won't be "laugh all the way to the bank because you're fitting a 10MN AB with no significant trade-offs" fun.
Xavier Azabu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#89 - 2015-04-02 14:15:51 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#90 - 2015-04-02 14:16:13 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Decoy
Rek Seven wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Regarding the Confessor, please increase the cpu by around 10 so we don't have to rely on implants, rigs or crap mods.


Which current setup doesn't fit CPU-wise? Shocked

I have DLP 10MN dual rep, DLB 10MN AAR and their equivalents with 1MN MWD in mind - All fit. I'll be honest - haven't tried SFP/Bs at all, because I'm a 10MN AB nanufaget. Bear


I use a passive fit but perhaps a active might work better... Still, the active one i have just made runs into cpu issues.

What dps are you getting or better yet, can i see your fit?



Two of my first ones, 398 cold with Conflag and 35-ish CPU spare. No, a DB EANM doesn't give a higher DPS/tanked. Blink

Quote:
[Confessor, DLPulse - 2 SAR 10MN]
Corpii A-Type Adaptive Nano Plating
Small Armor Repairer II
Small Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

Experimental 10MN Afterburner I
Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Warp Scrambler II

Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Dual Light Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Expanded Probe Launcher I, Core Scanner Probe I

Small Auxiliary Nano Pump II
Small Nanobot Accelerator II
Small Ancillary Current Router I


Melt face, yes? Big smile However, a smart Slicer pilot will chew you down... in 20 minutes.

Quote:
[Confessor, DLBeams - 10MN]
Small Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste
Internal Force Field Array I
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II

Experimental 10MN Afterburner I
Warp Disruptor II
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I

Dual Light Beam Laser II, Aurora S
Dual Light Beam Laser II, Aurora S
Dual Light Beam Laser II, Aurora S
Dual Light Beam Laser II, Aurora S
Dual Light Beam Laser II, Aurora S
Dual Light Beam Laser II, Aurora S
Expanded Probe Launcher I, Core Scanner Probe I

Small Energy Locus Coordinator II
Small Energy Locus Coordinator II
Small Ancillary Current Router I


Nanufaget, works a little bit better with 1MN MWD. Rigs to taste; 37/61 km with Aurora. Web <--> Scram is also pref.

Haven't used them in over 1.5 months, use spaceship fits at your own risk. vOv

Total EHP in both fits is around 6-6.5k, but that's how we roll brother,


*snip* ASCII art is not allowed. ~ ISD Decoy

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#91 - 2015-04-02 14:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
I honestly feel a CPU hit on the svipul would impact better than a PG nerf, granted this nerf is okay but it doesn't go that far to dealing with the issue. Stacking ACR rigs is easy, but CPU rigs are hella expensive in calibration, limiting their stacking ability.

At worst people flying the arty fit with just a PG nerf will take off a single 1 of their 3 damage mods or possibly a tracking mod and replace it with a mapc and be on their way again.

Having a cpu reduction on the svipul to 192CPU before skills alongside the small PG nerf would result in a curtail of the 10mn ab 280mm Arty fits better than the single pg hit alone.

people can still downgrade their artys to make it fit or plug in some implants.

... and i think a 5 second warm up time for the mode change (as mentioned earlier in this thread) alongside a 5 second cooldown would be more challenging then a straight 10 second cooldown and would somewhat remove the instawarp mode change issue too.

Edit: Also wanted to say EveHQ's HQF Editor is the sh*t for this kind of prototyping! mad props to the devs at making and maintaining that!
Cade Windstalker
#92 - 2015-04-02 15:01:37 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
I honestly feel a CPU hit on the svipul would impact better than a PG nerf, granted this nerf is okay but it doesn't go that far to dealing with the issue. Stacking ACR rigs is easy, but CPU rigs are hella expensive in calibration, limiting their stacking ability.

At worst people flying the arty fit with just a PG nerf will take off a single 1 of their 3 damage mods or possibly a tracking mod and replace it with a mapc and be on their way again.

Having a cpu reduction on the svipul to 192CPU before skills alongside the small PG nerf would result in a curtail of the 10mn ab 280mm Arty fits better than the single pg hit alone.

people can still downgrade their artys to make it fit or plug in some implants.

... and i think a 5 second warm up time for the mode change (as mentioned earlier in this thread) alongside a 5 second cooldown would be more challenging then a straight 10 second cooldown and would somewhat remove the instawarp mode change issue too.

Edit: Also wanted to say EveHQ's HQF Editor is the sh*t for this kind of prototyping! mad props to the devs at making and maintaining that!


Nothing here is meant to invalidate these fits, just nerf them a bit. If you're fitting a rig to deal with the Powergrid changes then you're not fitting a rig for speed, agility, damage, tank, or something else which means your ship is less effective compared to before the nerf.
GankYou
9B30FF Labs
#93 - 2015-04-02 15:08:22 UTC  |  Edited by: GankYou
I would like to inform all the interested parties, that there had been an obvious price manipulation with buying up of most available stock by speculators and price hikes from genuine producers with respect to the increase in the proposed build cost, which is being raised by around 12 mln ISK per hull. Smile

Within minutes of the announcement, prices spiked as high as 55m from the avg of 37m in Amarr, Domain region. This puts current build profit margins at 23 mln ISK, or 11m previously for the Confessor, as an example.

These prices won't last, so I caution you about stockping up on hulls prior to the Attribute changes going live on TQ at the end of April. Smile

Full disclosure: I have no position in this commodity. Blink

Regards,

CEO of Redshield Holding Company

...And they all crave one thing - ISK. ¤

[WTS] ME10 / TE20 BPOs from Battleships/Cruisers to Fighters, Carriers, Triage/Siege, XL modules & Cap Components
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#94 - 2015-04-02 15:15:10 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

Nothing here is meant to invalidate these fits, just nerf them a bit. If you're fitting a rig to deal with the Powergrid changes then you're not fitting a rig for speed, agility, damage, tank, or something else which means your ship is less effective compared to before the nerf.


yes but what im saying is that the currently proposed changes to the svipul will be practically ineffective, they may slightly reduce damage from a 3x stacked damage mod to 2x stacked) or slightly reduce tracking but considering the bonuses and modes and the frequency they can be changed its hardly a nerf at all.

the -20 on the speed is far more of a nerf on the svipul then the pg loss, which is negligible at best.
Cade Windstalker
#95 - 2015-04-02 15:20:03 UTC
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
yes but what im saying is that the currently proposed changes to the svipul will be practically ineffective, they may slightly reduce damage from a 3x stacked damage mod to 2x stacked) or slightly reduce tracking but considering the bonuses and modes and the frequency they can be changed its hardly a nerf at all.

the -20 on the speed is far more of a nerf on the svipul then the pg loss, which is negligible at best.


That seems to be more or less their intent, for this to be a small incremental adjustment as opposed to a "rod from god" nerf-bat from orbit.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#96 - 2015-04-02 15:24:35 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
yes but what im saying is that the currently proposed changes to the svipul will be practically ineffective, they may slightly reduce damage from a 3x stacked damage mod to 2x stacked) or slightly reduce tracking but considering the bonuses and modes and the frequency they can be changed its hardly a nerf at all.

the -20 on the speed is far more of a nerf on the svipul then the pg loss, which is negligible at best.


That seems to be more or less their intent, for this to be a small incremental adjustment as opposed to a "rod from god" nerf-bat from orbit.


yah and its understanable but when you're dealing with something u can actually put on a testbed and punch numbers in to get numbers out, theres actually very little sense in even having that 10pg drop. the fits people are utilising can absorb that pg hit with ease and carry on regardless. which shows that its either in the wrong place, is too light or requires an additional factor that multiplies its effectiveness - like an associated cpu hit.
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#97 - 2015-04-02 15:31:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:



    Confessor:
  • Powergrid: 71 (-9)
  • Max Velocity: 250 (-30)
  • Mass: 2,200,000kg (-200,000)
  • Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
  • Inertia: 2.4 (+0.25)
  • Capacitor Recharge Time: 320s (+20s)

    • Svipul:
  • Powergrid: 68 (-10)
  • Max Velocity: 270 (-20)
  • Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
  • Capacitor Recharge Time: 240s (+15s)

Material Requirements:
+1 to each of Electromechanical Interface Nexus, Fullerene Intercalated Sheets, Optimized Nano-engines, Reconfigured Subspace Calibrator, Self-Assembling Nanolattice, Warfare Computation Core

These changes are intentionally limited in scope as we want to take advantage of our rapid release cadence to make small changes and observe effects. We are very interested in hearing your feedback!


Good changes so far, though more will likely be needed to the svipul. The only thing it does to the svipul is make the already not very useful arty fit even less viable.

Here's another suggested tweak: Reduce the cargo capacity of T3D by 100-200m3. It is silly that they have as much cargo as many cruiser/BC sized ships (in fact, the entire system of cargo size is currently broken IMO. BS sized hulls should have more like 1km3, BC sized hulls more like 600, for instance, given the size of cap charges and some L ammo).
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#98 - 2015-04-02 15:32:57 UTC
So losing about 1/8 of base PG? ouch. Those long range fits were already tight. Trade-offs will be made.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2015-04-02 15:49:39 UTC
Please rename the topic from "Minor tweaks" (which they aren't) to "Dramiel style execution of the T3 destroyers."
A nerf to the price would have been sufficient; now you're nerfing your child into the round.
If a majority of people think that a particular setup of ship is overpowered do not always listen to them.
They may just be using inferioir tactics to dealing with the problem.
You can easily kill a T3 destroyer if you have proper tackle which most of the big gangs out there lack.
Now everyone will just go back to arty thrashers and that will get nerfed into the ground because a select few individuals complain about it being overpowered.
Why not fix something that actually need fixing like T1 cruiser logi being such a huge force multiplier? Please nerf that into the ground instead of the T3 destroyers which add variety to the game :(
Am Staff
Super Villains
Pandemic Horde
#100 - 2015-04-02 16:09:16 UTC
Is there anything that you don't want to nerf fozzie Evil