These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Carnyx] The Jackdaw

First post
Author
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#301 - 2015-05-18 13:32:21 UTC
It's a tough one, there are a lot of reasons for it being problematic not least the ability of smaller sized asb to carry so many charges) but also as you say, generally anything with an AB is going to laugh at all missile users because it's all about absolute velocity/sig.

I reckon a gunboat and webs would have had a lot more success (and the vexor chew it up and spit it out). A lot of people overlook other dedicated frigate killing cruisers because the caracal is a no brainer "push F1 to win" and in fleets they're absolutely right. Solo, oft other ships are better.

However more widely.....I dunno, the whole "food chain" seems all messed up these days with more and more hulls needing odd and weird (i.e. overly specific) fits to counter. Related to this there are too many examples of certain ships displacing the entire meta around them (garmurs, gilas, svipuls to name a few), if these ships didnt exist, other fits may have room to live and breath.
Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#302 - 2015-05-18 13:49:17 UTC
What happened to Rise anyway? Aren't those ships his creation? I don't follow any CCP twitters
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#303 - 2015-05-18 13:59:36 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Don't know.

I seem to have an idea in my head that the approximate hull size balance triangle should be roughly battleships>battlecruisers>cruisers>battleships with frigates running tackle and support and destroyers blowing up said support wings.

But that seems to be just....dead in the water. I admit that may be rose tinted glasses/pipe dream (it's been a long time). However there is no denying that in the meta as she stands today, cruiser class hulls have no natural predators (which causes all sorts of nasty knock ons) and outlier hulls are punching FAR too high about their weight skewing the entire meta towards hulls that can either survive them or escape them (or most commonly, joining them).

Gut feel suggests the entire cruiser tier needs hammered back into line and we see where we sit from there. Note I don't want to see them relegated to trash, just down a peg or five from "fly this size or go home". They're skewing everything: the game and peoples ideas/perceptions of "balance" when they see the alternates out there and compare it to cruiser class. I suppose one could buff the ass out of battlecruisers but that's just asking for more trouble than it is worth imo.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#304 - 2015-05-18 14:39:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Lloyd Roses
afkalt wrote:
Don't know.

I seem to have an idea in my head that the approximate hull size balance triangle should be roughly battleships>battlecruisers>cruisers>battleships with frigates running tackle and support and destroyers blowing up said support wings.


Should read *Battleship>ABC>cruisers>destroyers>frigates>ABC*. Take a 1v1 basis and show me the BS fitted for solo that loses to a single frig. In gangs, Muninn, Zealot, Ishtar and Caldari HACs easily escape that scheme, but they were tailored to do exactly that in larger numbers. Else, in a XvX scenario, BS would very likely still triumph over other choices, since your sig/movespeed barely matters once you're triplewebbed and the attackers are spread 15km away from each other, meaning you can only outrun the tracking of one at a time. It's the type of downsides they bring for big scales that dequalify them for doing what they'd supposed to be best at.

Most people are godawful at flying BS, you see footage of people approaching T1 cruisers and shooting void instead of keeping range and a lot more oftenly I experience that, being shot by a bigger hull without any efforts by the pilot to minimize transversal. Then those usually come around *BS are ***** when they are just bad themselves actually.
Talking fleets is obviously a completely different thing, with collective volley being as high as you wish (just write CTA to that ping) and bombers being as cheap/effective/efficient as they are.

As it currently stands though, destroyers are arguably in the worst space out of all ships atm. They got poor tanks with the exception of overpropped+unwebbed T3Ds, huge sigs and are moving very slowly in general. Less adressing the base speed but their propped ones. The Talwar is the one viable destroyer - only due to its mwd-sigrad-bonus and acceptable speed for a LML boat with 70km range.

Edit: I remember CCP Fozzie starting off the Cruiser revamp with *First, we're increasing velocity by around 20% across the board*. We actually wanted that. Now I've seen what cruisers with fair slot layouts and decent hull traits can accomplish, and I don't think all of those 20% were needed.
Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#305 - 2015-05-18 14:58:37 UTC
FWIW one of the devs in days gone by said that the game was balanced around cruiser combat so with that in mind they will form the base of the pyramid.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#306 - 2015-05-18 14:59:12 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Lloyd Roses wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Don't know.

I seem to have an idea in my head that the approximate hull size balance triangle should be roughly battleships>battlecruisers>cruisers>battleships with frigates running tackle and support and destroyers blowing up said support wings.


Should read *Battleship>ABC>cruisers>destroyers>frigates>ABC*. Take a 1v1 basis and show me the BS fitted for solo that loses to a single frig. In gangs, Muninn, Zealot, Ishtar and Caldari HACs easily escape that scheme, but they were tailored to do exactly that in larger numbers. Else, in a XvX scenario, BS would very likely still triumph over other choices, since your sig/movespeed barely matters once you're triplewebbed and the attackers are spread 15km away from each other, meaning you can only outrun the tracking of one at a time. It's the type of downsides they bring for big scales that dequalify them for doing what they'd supposed to be best at.

Most people are godawful at flying BS, you see footage of people approaching T1 cruisers and shooting void instead of keeping range and a lot more oftenly I experience that, being shot by a bigger hull without any efforts by the pilot to minimize transversal. Then those usually come around *BS are ***** when they are just bad themselves actually.
Talking fleets is obviously a completely different thing, with collective volley being as high as you wish (just write CTA to that ping) and bombers being as cheap/effective/efficient as they are.

As it currently stands though, destroyers are arguably in the worst space out of all ships atm. They got poor tanks with the exception of overpropped+unwebbed T3Ds, huge sigs and are moving very slowly in general. Less adressing the base speed but their propped ones. The Talwar is the one viable destroyer - only due to its mwd-sigrad-bonus and acceptable speed for a LML boat with 70km range.


Yes I was generalizing hull size rather than specifics because T2's start messing things up if one gets too low level.

1v1 is a poor example, small gang is probably best as then we avoid running into alpha issues. The meta is currently set such that the best ratio of speed/dps/tank (in that order) is king and that's always coming down with cruisers. Certainly, there are BS comps cruisers will flee from (RR domis being a favourite), however without a strategic objective to force them to stay on field it's cruisers or bust. You can disengage from anything nasty you don't like (except a blob of frigs but blobs are blobs) and can kill well over your weight class (with exceptions noted). Even where you are forced on field, HACs do bad things to battleships (fair enough) with no real counterplay save "BRING MOOOOAR!" (not fair enough), range dictation/DPS dictation wins.

Throwing logi in the mix and it gets even worse because the raw buffer matters less and the damage mitigation of small hull size makes all the difference and native resists are identical up the hull sizes and stacking penalties stop the bigger ships really doubling down hard on the resist front. This has actually only just hit me - does seem weird a logi is going to rep a Rokh as effectively as it will a Moa. Actually less so because Rokh takes more damage!

Perhaps it's just me, but I just feel the cruiser sized hulls do too much, too well.


ed:
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
FWIW one of the devs in days gone by said that the game was balanced around cruiser combat so with that in mind they will form the base of the pyramid.



Nothing wrong with that, but give them meaningful predators. Something that can hunt them. Get the Scissors back in rock, paper scissors.
Fourteen Maken
Karma and Causality
#307 - 2015-05-18 15:26:01 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:


As it currently stands though, destroyers are arguably in the worst space out of all ships atm. They got poor tanks with the exception of overpropped+unwebbed T3Ds, huge sigs and are moving very slowly in general. Less adressing the base speed but their propped ones. The Talwar is the one viable destroyer - only due to its mwd-sigrad-bonus and acceptable speed for a LML boat with 70km range.
.



Destroyers are seeing a lot of use in faction war low sec in specialized roles. The Talwar is probably one of the less common. If I were to put them in order it would be:

1: Algos. Used mostly solo in fw, sits on the warp in ready to tackle anything that comes in, buffed drones to deal with rats and push off kiters, can run small and medium plexes easy enough.
2: Thrasher. mostly instalocking arty fits, used both solo and in gangs.
3: Cormorant. Sniper corms used to defend fw plexes in gangs
4: Catalysts/Coercers. pointless fits used en masse to melt stuff before it can warp off
5: Talwars. MWD/LML fit obviously, mostly used in gangs
6: Coraxes. Sometimes used with ewar as a counter to some of the other long range destroyers
7: Dragoon. probably the tankiest of all destroyers, good dps, good cap warfare bonus, but I don't see them very often because they lack range control due to only having 2 mid slots and a low base speed, just like the punisher is rarely used in frigates despite having the best tank...

Which is why the tank on the Jackdaw doesn't impress me, there are plenty of ships out there that can fit hella tank, but if they can't tackle and hold pont they're of limmited use no matter how big the tank is.
Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#308 - 2015-05-18 15:30:48 UTC
Regarding RR setups that has as much to do with generating cap out of thin air and remote reps being more powerful and accessible than local reps.
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#309 - 2015-05-18 16:11:27 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Don't know.

I seem to have an idea in my head that the approximate hull size balance triangle should be roughly battleships>battlecruisers>cruisers>battleships with frigates running tackle and support and destroyers blowing up said support wings.

But that seems to be just....dead in the water. I admit that may be rose tinted glasses/pipe dream (it's been a long time). However there is no denying that in the meta as she stands today, cruiser class hulls have no natural predators (which causes all sorts of nasty knock ons) and outlier hulls are punching FAR too high about their weight skewing the entire meta towards hulls that can either survive them or escape them (or most commonly, joining them).

Gut feel suggests the entire cruiser tier needs hammered back into line and we see where we sit from there. Note I don't want to see them relegated to trash, just down a peg or five from "fly this size or go home". They're skewing everything: the game and peoples ideas/perceptions of "balance" when they see the alternates out there and compare it to cruiser class. I suppose one could buff the ass out of battlecruisers but that's just asking for more trouble than it is worth imo.

The problem other than mordus and serp ships, was the balance pass for cruisers and frigates was far too generous and the balance pass for battleships was far too stingy. So power creep overwhelmingly benefitted medium and small ships beyond a sane point.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#310 - 2015-05-18 17:02:59 UTC
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far, especially those of you who have been testing on SISI.

We're making a couple tweaks that should be in the next SISI build for you to try out.

  • Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders)
  • +1 Powergrid
  • -50 Shield HP
  • +50 Armor HP
  • +10 Velocity
  • +0.2 Inertia
  • -50,000kg mass
  • -25 scan resolution

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#311 - 2015-05-18 17:11:25 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far, especially those of you who have been testing on SISI.

We're making a couple tweaks that should be in the next SISI build for you to try out.

  • Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders)
  • +1 Powergrid
  • -50 Shield HP
  • +50 Armor HP
  • +10 Velocity
  • +0.2 Inertia
  • -50,000kg mass
  • -25 scan resolution


It's be good if you could explain the rationale for these, I mean for example...scan res nerf?

On what basis? I mean I'm not saying you're wrong to do so, but "instalocking" followed by delayed application weapon seems like complete a non-issue. Was there overwhelming feedback it locked too fast?

It would really help the feedback process if we understood the whys and the what is being aimed for.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#312 - 2015-05-18 17:21:31 UTC
So now it has a free small shield extender, which are widely regarded as not worth, making the large buffer and passive regen fits much more difficult to pull off, while getting a single point of PG, which does not do much to enable the fits which weren't abusing this bonus, while becoming less agile but faster overall with more effect from prop mods and a mass which now is less than that of several frigates despite being a size class above them? Then nerfing the scan res on top of this change?

I'm glad to see the communities cry for a bit more PG and speed were heeded, but was the further mass reduction and agility change really necessary, especially with the massive cut in power of the HP bonus?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#313 - 2015-05-18 17:27:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders)


What? A flat HP bonus per level? And only 50? What is that? Shocked
Its never been done for a reason! Flat bonuses are as far from the EVE philosophy as it can get.

Sounds like its officially the worst bonus of the game, and it horribly scales for about any fitting. What good does 250 shield hp does on a destroyer? (fixed it)

I also don't understand why you nerfed the scan-res, snd you didn't even up the speed by more than a negligible amount! If this destroyer has to be less tanky without being faster, what's the point of using it in the first place?

Looks like there won't be any use for the Jackdaw, its literally a worse more expensive Caracal. Apart from the warp speed / probe launcher CPU bonus.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#314 - 2015-05-18 17:28:50 UTC
Altrue wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders)


What? A flat HP bonus per level? And only 50? What is that? Shocked

Sounds like its officially the worst bonus of the game, and it horribly scales for about any fitting. What good does 250 shield hp does on a frigate?

Worse, on a destroyer.

I could see 100Hp/lvl being a strong tank bonus which doesn't scale insanely with dual MSE or single LSE fits, but 50 is too weak to matter more than one good salvo.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Solarus Explorer
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#315 - 2015-05-18 17:33:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Solarus Explorer
Altrue wrote:


Sounds like its officially the worst bonus of the game


I have to agree with this sentiment....... +50hp/level is almost funny as a hull bonus :P

Poor caldari, it seems they always get the short end of the stick :(
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#316 - 2015-05-18 17:49:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
a little bizarre .. Shocked

why even bother with 250 hp? .. might aswell remove it .. maybe add a 5% exp velocity bonus
still keeping the excessive 6 mids..Shocked .. even a ferox doesn't get that many .. 2 sizes up

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

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#317 - 2015-05-18 18:04:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
Let's look at this objectively shall we?

Comparison Caracal RML vs Jackdaw Light missiles

All V, without heat / implants / links / anything

Caracal vs Jackdaw :
37 751 vs 22 753 --- EHP
374 vs 154 --- dps (caldari navy both - Hobgoblin T2)
125 vs 146 --- dps over 60sec with reload taken into account.
1881 vs 1540 --- m/s (standard MWD)
7.44s vs 6.32s --- align time
1127m vs 541m --- sig radius
337,5 vs 343,75mm --- scan res
72,7 vs 42,1km --- missile range
3 vs 4.5 AU/s --- warp speed

25m vs ~75m --- price tag

So of course the modes aren't taken into account here, so let's take a look at these:
- Sharpshooter Mode : Your missiles go about as far as a Caracal's
- Propulsion Mode : You finally manage to go about 2050m/s, which is a bit more than 10% faster than a Caracal.
- Defense mode : 29k EHP and 357m sig radius instead. Definitely the only place where one could eventually consider that the Jackdaw really differs from the Caracal. 357 sig at 1540m/s is however enough for medium AND large guns to threaten you. Not to mention that you'll probably never reach such speed given how long the acceleration would be.

Conclusion:
For TRIPLE the price, you get a ship that's WORSE in most cases, or that has negligible bonuses, especially for (again) triple the price.
The only real difference lies in the signature radius, but given how SLOW the ship is, and given that the jackdaw would still be over 350sig, I really don't see how this could significantly improve its survivability.

TL;DR: I won't bother and rather pick a caracal or, if I really want to go pimp and small, a flycatcher.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#318 - 2015-05-18 18:12:50 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Fergus Runkle wrote:
Seriously, more powergrid required (unless of course you want to force people to fit rockets all the time?)

5 t2 lml with a t2 ab and you have 25.5pg left. Not enough to fit even the storyline MSE.


The fitting downsides and compromises that need to be made are fairly awesome on this ship. While the jackdaw is certainly strong, it has it's terrible footprint to bear (high sig, low speed) and actually even with a mwd+nano, you're only looking at 2km/s cold in prop mode.
I fooled around on SiSI yesterday to look for what seems like a comfort fit, and right now it's something like LML, 2MSE, point+web, fitting mods and more resists for about 18k ehp ingame. It's a little podla drake with combats.

Pestilen Ratte wrote:
Rantrantrant.

Where did the evil svipul touch you?


This is dead on. Even with perfect fitting skills it needs some fitting rig help to everything it needs. And it is slow. On the plus side, with a nano in the low, it aligns from full stop to warp in about 2 seconds. 3 seconds from the undock.

I have no doubt what-so-ever that sub-2-second align times can be had.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#319 - 2015-05-18 18:21:39 UTC
Soldarius wrote:

I have no doubt what-so-ever that sub-2-second align times can be had.


I have no doubt about how useless this is in any combat situation, and no doubt that I'd gadly trade it for speed instead Big smile

The agility really is a poisonned gift, given the lack of speed and the really bad agility in other modes.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Zeb Horlock
Doomheim
#320 - 2015-05-18 18:50:14 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far, especially those of you who have been testing on SISI.

We're making a couple tweaks that should be in the next SISI build for you to try out.

  • Changing the 5% shield HP bonus to a +50 shield HP per level (generally toning down the bonus a bit, especially when fitting multiple extenders)
  • +1 Powergrid
  • -50 Shield HP
  • +50 Armor HP
  • +10 Velocity
  • +0.2 Inertia
  • -50,000kg mass
  • -25 scan resolution


Ok i'm going to suggest something kinda radical (and will probably be met with ire and forum chest beating) but it may allow for more interesting small gang fights and reduce its effectiveness in a solo situation.

Instead of a 50HP shield per level make it a remote shield rep amount per level, something sane being as realistically your only going to have 1 slot available most times for the remote rep. depending on how impacting this is you can either keep the 6 mids or reduce it to 5 (i'll be honest, not entirely thought out the mids for this situation)

This change would add an interesting twist on the Cal T3 dessie which would actually make an impact (unlike the 50hp/lvl) and would work well with other T3ds (not only other Jackdaws but also Svipuls and many other shield gangs)

Yes i'm also well aware that this could also introduce a frigate/dessie sized tinker setup but really, that would also be more interesting than 50hp/lvl...


Let the flames begin.