These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murkelost
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2015-04-13 05:44:45 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
As someone who has been putting oversized ABs on my ships since Apocrypha, I feel like I should come in and at least defend the psychology of the choice.

Starting out as a young Minmatar pilot, you always hear "Minmatar ships are fast." This is true, until someone gets webs on you or shuts your MWD off with a scram or if you are fitted with a regular sized afterburner versus a MWDing opponent. At that point, the whole balance of your fitting is usually entirely negated. You can't track. You can't run. You either have a gimped capacitor from fitting a MWD or you are using capacitor to run an afterburner that does essentially nothing for you. You might as well not even have fit a propulsion module, but you can't go back to the fitting window and fix it, now. You're just . . . dead in the water. (Pun intended.)

What do you do? How do you ensure that your opponent doesn't just point->click-> and shut off your ability to maneuver effectively?

A warp disruptor is already telling my ship what to do: Do not warp out!
A warp scrambler 1-ups that: Do not warp out and shut down your MWD!
A webifier: Fly (much) slower!

As a young destroyer pilot (Thrasher and Catalyst, mostly), all I really wanted, and still want even now, is a module that answers a warp disruptor and/or a warp scrambler and/or a stasis webifier and/or a warp disruptor bubble or scripted warp disruption field generator, simply: No!

Is the problem that I'm moving too fast and you can't stop me or is the problem that you expect to dictate how I fly MY SPACESHIP by clicking just one or two buttons?


The thing I like about what you have written is that it confirms the fact that PVP in Eve is a complex scenario, atleast when you are up against people who know their stuff. Back in the day when vagabonds were really hard to catch, you had to put your mind to it and come up with ways to catch them along with some blind luck not to mention the nanophoons Pirate. I know that I setup various traps that included drag bubbles, rapiers for webifying an so on and it was such a joy when one actually nailed one of those fast muppets :)

I think one of the few or many problems that comes along with this is the mental state of convinience/laziness and less skills or knowledge of how to act around various scenarios. No offence to anyone but if you take Rooks and Kings and compare them to a big blobfest alliance (any alliance) I'm sure you will be able to make a distinction between the two.

I also agree that the fitting concept should not be to tightly controlled, but I just find it wrong to nerf a ship/ships when the obvious problem is that a module which people think is wrong to fit to a specific sized ship is actually able to be fitted to it. So question is what's it gonna be, the ongoing tradition of nerfing ships when they in themselves are not the primary issue, or address the real issue behind it (in this case propulsion module size vs ship size).

I am split between both scenarious, but if it was up to me i would prefer to latter.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#242 - 2015-04-13 06:58:02 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Face it, whether it was Tengus with 100mn Afterburners or T3D's with 10mn Afterburners, they are both cancerous.


They are, but only when fitted by default due to generous PG. MWD Confessor and Arty Sviipuls should become very competitive due to these changes.

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

[Cruisers Online]
Murkelost
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#243 - 2015-04-13 07:11:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Murkelost
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Face it, whether it was Tengus with 100mn Afterburners or T3D's with 10mn Afterburners, they are both cancerous.


They are, but only when fitted by default due to generous PG. MWD Confessor and Arty Sviipuls should become very competitive due to these changes.


The generous PG is not the main issue in my opinion Blink
Cade Windstalker
#244 - 2015-04-13 07:25:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Cade Windstalker
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
As a young destroyer pilot (Thrasher and Catalyst, mostly), all I really wanted, and still want even now, is a module that answers a warp disruptor and/or a warp scrambler and/or a stasis webifier and/or a warp disruptor bubble or scripted warp disruption field generator, simply: No!

Is the problem that I'm moving too fast and you can't stop me or is the problem that you expect to dictate how I fly MY SPACESHIP by clicking just one or two buttons?


What you're looking for mate is ECM. Also, in some ways, what the Scram/Web are doing is answering your prop mod and speed. A ship with an AB who is webbed is still moving significantly faster than a ship with no AB who is webbed.

The point though is to avoid getting locked down in the first place unless that's something you have the tools to deal with, whether that's tank, DPS, ECM, or something else entirely.

BTW let me tell you there is nothing in the world more annoying than being tackled by a Griffin with ECM running. Pirate

Murkelost wrote:
I also agree that the fitting concept should not be to tightly controlled, but I just find it wrong to nerf a ship/ships when the obvious problem is that a module which people think is wrong to fit to a specific sized ship is actually able to be fitted to it. So question is what's it gonna be, the ongoing tradition of nerfing ships when they in themselves are not the primary issue, or address the real issue behind it (in this case propulsion module size vs ship size).

I am split between both scenarious, but if it was up to me i would prefer to latter.


I don't really feel like the 10MN fits are the problem, but more a symptom of it. When a 10MN fit doesn't have to make significant trade-offs to work then it's likely other things aren't having to make trade-offs either, which is what we're seeing with the 2x MASB fits and other stuff.

These changes aren't nerfing these fits off the map but I don't think that's desirable either. They incur significant trade-offs which, on paper, should be enough to balance the fits out. If that's not the case I'd prefer a look at the MWD's balance and place in the game over something that makes these fits flat out non-viable, since on paper a MWD fit should have significant benefits in terms of fitting and maneuverability over a 10MN fit. It's also a module that hasn't been touched, as far as I'm aware, since the original Nano-nerf some ~8 years ago.

With all the changes the game has undergone since then maybe a look at propulsion modules and their counters is in order? I mean, the meta has been progressively shifting toward small and maneuverable over the last 8 years. First it was AHAC gangs, then it was T3 fleets, then the warp-speed changes, then finally T3 Destroyers, and now everything from Null-fleets to small gangs is drifting quickly toward Cruisers and smaller when it's not Battleships supported by Capitals and the larger ships are feeling increasingly out in the cold from the look of things in the community. Oh, and the Vindi is one of the most popular Battleships, which is also telling.

No particular point to that little ramble, just some general thoughts.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#245 - 2015-04-13 08:23:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Murkelost wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Face it, whether it was Tengus with 100mn Afterburners or T3D's with 10mn Afterburners, they are both cancerous.


They are, but only when fitted by default due to generous PG. MWD Confessor and Arty Sviipuls should become very competitive due to these changes.


The generous PG is not the main issue in my opinion Blink


Yes, it is a cumulative issue of the Prop mode bonuses and high base speeds, with Svipul having too much PG left over in AC setup even with the nerf. Unlike a Confessor, AC Svipul doesn't have to rely on SS mode to do damage, which makes oversized ABs particularly bad in that case. Nanugaf in Prop all day long.

Confessor with a 10MN excels at brawling cruisers due to the triple whammy of insanely low sig radius and high resists in Def mode, along with disengagement option in practically all situations.

I've been double webbed, neuted and shot at with everything from Dual 180mm autos to Heavy Electron blasters by boats that have application bonuses such as tracking, yet it was mathematically impossible to either 1) be hit successfully with any sufficient frequency as to apply sustained DPS that would overcome the tank; 2) properly tackle; 3) shut down the dual SARs - hallo 400 cap boosters, or 4) land an alpha that would go past 60% armour point.

Mathematically unpossible. PG nurf makes one sacrifice DPS, or range if you switch to Gatling Pulses, and a tiny bit of tank for 10MN goodness.

Good ship. I liek. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)

D-scan said go tackle that Navy Osprey once, turns out RLML

Confessor is kill.

No.

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

[Cruisers Online]
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#246 - 2015-04-13 08:27:38 UTC  |  Edited by: elitatwo
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
..This game has history with oversized, extreme, often broken setups that work super good if only for a time, as the practice in question gets nerfbatted. I don't recall a change that put artificial restrictions just because of 1-2 boats.]


Falcon - ecm nerf

Drake, tengu - heavy missile nerf, Drake overnerf

Caracal, Cerberus - assault missile launchers become rapid launchers

all subcaptial ships - useless nos, neut all zee things..

logistics - all ships resistance bonusses

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#247 - 2015-04-13 09:09:24 UTC
No, those are all attribute adjustments. Smile

I see no artificial restrictions being placed in any of those cases.

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

[Cruisers Online]
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#248 - 2015-04-13 09:40:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Cade Windstalker wrote:

BTW let me tell you there is nothing in the world more annoying than being tackled by a Griffin with ECM running. Pirate


During the first weeks of release, I almost got rekt by a Tristan and a Griffin - didn't realise Sharpshooter gave a 100% bonus to sensor strength. Smile

Moonwalked out of it with 10AB lulululululululul. ~(˘▾˘~)

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

[Cruisers Online]
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#249 - 2015-04-13 21:32:42 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Hey everyone!
Big thanks to everyone who has posted feedback about the first round of changes. We agree with the point that some of you were bringing up, that these first round of changes are a bit too harsh on long range weapon fits compared to short range weapon fits. A certain amount of added fitting pain for long range fits will be necessary, but long range weapon viability is a key part of the character of the tactical destroyers and it would be a shame to limit that more than absolutely necessary.

So we've come up with a second iteration of these changes, using a slightly more invasive set of adjustments. To reduce the impact of extremely high fittings while continuing to keep long range weapons competitive with short range weapons we are proposing a change to the turrets of the Confessor and Svipul. Both would lose 2 turrets (going to 4) but gain a new +50% damage role bonus to keep DPS the same. This allows us to reduce fittings significantly without harming long range fits as much, as the weapons will make a smaller percentage of the overall Powergrid and CPU consumption of the ships.

These new versions also include a mass reduction for the Svipul (which is how we directly impact the power of oversized prop modules) and a bit more speed reduction. Material requirement changes remain the same as in version one.


    Confessor:
  • New Role Bonus: +50% Small Energy Turret Damage
  • Highslots: 6 (-1)
  • Turrets: 4 (-2)
  • Powergrid: 62 (-18)
  • CPU: 180 (-10)
  • Max Velocity: 235 (-45)
  • Mass: 2,000,000kg (-400,000)
  • Inertia: 2.7 (+0.55)
  • Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
  • Capacitor Recharge Time: 320s (+20s)

    • Svipul:
  • New Role Bonus: +50% Small Projectile Turret Damage
  • Highslots: 6 (-1)
  • Turrets: 4 (-2)
  • Powergrid: 59 (-19)
  • CPU: 205 (-10)
  • Max Velocity: 230 (-60)
  • Mass: 1,500,000 (-400,000)
  • Inertia: 3.5 (+0.85)
  • Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
  • Capacitor Recharge Time: 240s (+15s)

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

Like I said above, thanks to everyone who has participated in this feedback thread so far. We're very interested in hearing your thoughts about this second iteration of the changes.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#250 - 2015-04-13 21:37:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone!
To reduce the impact of extremely high fittings while continuing to keep long range weapons competitive with short range weapons we are proposing a change to the turrets of the Confessor and Svipul. Both would lose 2 turrets (going to 4) but gain a new +50% damage role bonus to keep DPS the same.


BRB to read the specifics, I first hafta, in a very expedite and prompt manner, set my training to Minmatar Tactical Destroyer V.

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

[Cruisers Online]
Alexis Nightwish
#251 - 2015-04-13 21:47:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone!
Big thanks to everyone who has posted feedback about the first round of changes. We agree with the point that some of you were bringing up, that these first round of changes are a bit too harsh on long range weapon fits compared to short range weapon fits. A certain amount of added fitting pain for long range fits will be necessary, but long range weapon viability is a key part of the character of the tactical destroyers and it would be a shame to limit that more than absolutely necessary.

So we've come up with a second iteration of these changes, using a slightly more invasive set of adjustments. To reduce the impact of extremely high fittings while continuing to keep long range weapons competitive with short range weapons we are proposing a change to the turrets of the Confessor and Svipul. Both would lose 2 turrets (going to 4) but gain a new +50% damage role bonus to keep DPS the same. This allows us to reduce fittings significantly without harming long range fits as much, as the weapons will make a smaller percentage of the overall Powergrid and CPU consumption of the ships.

These new versions also include a mass reduction for the Svipul (which is how we directly impact the power of oversized prop modules) and a bit more speed reduction. Material requirement changes remain the same as in version one.


    Confessor:
  • New Role Bonus: +50% Small Energy Turret Damage
  • Highslots: 6 (-1)
  • Turrets: 4 (-2)
  • Powergrid: 62 (-18)
  • CPU: 180 (-10)
  • Max Velocity: 235 (-45)
  • Mass: 2,000,000kg (-400,000)
  • Inertia: 2.7 (+0.55)
  • Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
  • Capacitor Recharge Time: 320s (+20s)

    • Svipul:
  • New Role Bonus: +50% Small Projectile Turret Damage
  • Highslots: 6 (-1)
  • Turrets: 4 (-2)
  • Powergrid: 59 (-19)
  • CPU: 205 (-10)
  • Max Velocity: 230 (-60)
  • Mass: 1,500,000 (-400,000)
  • Inertia: 3.5 (+0.85)
  • Shield Recharge Time: 800s (+175s)
  • Capacitor Recharge Time: 240s (+15s)

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

Like I said above, thanks to everyone who has participated in this feedback thread so far. We're very interested in hearing your thoughts about this second iteration of the changes.


Improvement!

The pg and cap nerf isn't so devastating to the Confessor now since it's firing 4 turrets instead of 6 so that's good. Also with only needing to fit 4 turrets, arty Svips will probably still be viable. I'd have to run the numbers to see for sure but I think 10MN ABs are still viable, but no longer super strong with these changes. I hope I'm right on that as I like oversized props being an option on the T3Ds. Hopefully it will be one of many viable fitting choices for these ships.

Oh and they gain a utility high! Entosis link anyone? Double NOS brawling Confessors? Such choices. Much option. Wow!


Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#252 - 2015-04-13 21:50:22 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:

Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?


There's a higher base speed on the Confessor, but the lower mass on the Svipul ensures that it's faster with prop mods on. High base speed but high mass to temper that speed is a feature of a lot of the Amarrian ships that we've rebalanced recently.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#253 - 2015-04-13 21:54:55 UTC
Looks like some cool changes. As someone who loves RR gangs it is nice to see them having 2 utility highs.

And it is a great way to target the annoying 10mn brawl setups rather than nano setups. But why is the cap recharge time higher for the confessor than the svipul?

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#254 - 2015-04-13 21:55:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:

Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?


There's a higher base speed on the Confessor, but the lower mass on the Svipul ensures that it's faster with prop mods on. High base speed but high mass to temper that speed is a feature of a lot of the Amarrian ships that we've rebalanced recently.


But faster than a Minmatar ship? If memory serves me, Minmatar ships usually have a higher base speed as well as lower mass. Base speed for Amarr ships is usually a couple percent slower than Minmatar base speed for comparable ships.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#255 - 2015-04-13 22:01:53 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Bagehi wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:

Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?


There's a higher base speed on the Confessor, but the lower mass on the Svipul ensures that it's faster with prop mods on. High base speed but high mass to temper that speed is a feature of a lot of the Amarrian ships that we've rebalanced recently.


But faster than a Minmatar ship? If memory serves me, Minmatar ships usually have a higher base speed as well as lower mass. Base speed for Amarr ships is usually a couple percent slower than Minmatar base speed for comparable ships.


It'll differ from ship to ship, mainly depending on how big the mass difference is (pretty big in this case). At the end of the day we're more focused on getting an interesting variety of ships than in following any specific patterns rigidly.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#256 - 2015-04-13 22:13:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Svipul:
  • Max Velocity: 230 (-60)
  • Mass: 1,500,000 (-400,000)


    • Shocked

    Without taking mass changes into account, the new 1MWD speeds are 1,450/2,000 m/s and 2,400/3350 m/s in Prop mode.

    Don't know how to calculate mass-thrust relationship.

    These levels seem a lot more reasonable, than previously.

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

    [Cruisers Online]
    Sparky Dave3
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #257 - 2015-04-13 22:16:09 UTC
    Seems like some really great changes, bit worried about the Confessor having worse recharge than the Svipul though considering it has capless guns! It already struggled somewhat with cap :(

    The 4 gun setup has some interesting implications for overheating though, it should be nice!
    Bagehi
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #258 - 2015-04-13 22:16:17 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Bagehi wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Alexis Nightwish wrote:

    Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?


    There's a higher base speed on the Confessor, but the lower mass on the Svipul ensures that it's faster with prop mods on. High base speed but high mass to temper that speed is a feature of a lot of the Amarrian ships that we've rebalanced recently.


    But faster than a Minmatar ship? If memory serves me, Minmatar ships usually have a higher base speed as well as lower mass. Base speed for Amarr ships is usually a couple percent slower than Minmatar base speed for comparable ships.


    It'll differ from ship to ship, mainly depending on how big the mass difference is (pretty big in this case). At the end of the day we're more focused on getting an interesting variety of ships than in following any specific patterns rigidly.


    Svipul still ends up being the more agile, higher dps, faster, more tanked ship of the two. Confessor was already a tight fit, the fitting changes seem to hurt the Confessor more than the Svipul, even though the Svipul seems the more dominant ship to begin with. Maybe I'm missing an in-game use where the Confessor deserved to be punished more than the Svipul?
    ChromeStriker
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #259 - 2015-04-13 22:17:08 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    It'll differ from ship to ship, mainly depending on how big the mass difference is (pretty big in this case). At the end of the day we're more focused on getting an interesting variety of ships than in following any specific patterns rigidly.


    I love that your not thinking with blinkers on but im worried with all the recent balance changes we are losing the racial uniqueness of the ships....
    Theres so little gap between some ships you could mistake one for the other..... (other than *minmatar use projectiles* etc)

    No Worries
    Cade Windstalker
    #260 - 2015-04-13 22:22:38 UTC
    Mizhir wrote:
    But why is the cap recharge time higher for the confessor than the svipul?


    The Confessor has much higher base cap amount than the Svipul, 1000 vs 750 with maxed skills. The peak cap recharge for both ships is the same on TQ currently, and I believe Fozzies current changes either keep it the same or slightly favor the Confessor.

    Bagehi wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Alexis Nightwish wrote:

    Fozzie, it seems odd that the Amarran ship is faster than the Minmatar one. Is that intentional?


    There's a higher base speed on the Confessor, but the lower mass on the Svipul ensures that it's faster with prop mods on. High base speed but high mass to temper that speed is a feature of a lot of the Amarrian ships that we've rebalanced recently.


    But faster than a Minmatar ship? If memory serves me, Minmatar ships usually have a higher base speed as well as lower mass. Base speed for Amarr ships is usually a couple percent slower than Minmatar base speed for comparable ships.


    This is correct, and I have a spreadsheet to prove it. but Fozzie is also correct that the Svipul performs better with a prop mod due to the lower base mass.

    However, it now performs far worse with an over-sized prop-mod because of the massive inertia increase. This is because a 10MN AB's mass increase is huge compared to the base mass of the ship. So, doing some back of the napkin estimation the new Svipul with a 10MN AB and Propulsion Mode active should take around 16-17 seconds to align, up from 9.6 seconds currently. For those of you who care that's slower than a Megathron running a Microwarpdrive.