These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Izmaragd Dawnstar
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#421 - 2015-05-19 15:10:53 UTC
From a design perspective, a fixed shield HP bonus (besides being about as weak as a wet noodle) does not make a lot of sense, because it doesn't scale with your shield extenders, other skills like Shield Management, or with implants. If you look at the other ship's bonuses, you don't exactly find a lot of those running around (except things like Ishkur drone bay bonus or +drone number bonuses on carriers or Guardian-Vexor).

If you fear that the +5% shield HP bonus would be OP (which I doubt seeing silly stuff like LSE svipuls running around), then swap it to something else entirely, for example +5% shield recharge per level (to keep in the tune of recent Tengu subsystem changes, or something for better damage application for light missiles and rockets (+explosion radius or velocity).

On a side note, I don't understand the whole "let's get +ROF instead of +damage" approach. Maybe a replacement of the main bonus to a +damage percentage is in order as well. It's apparently OK on Mordu's ships and on other tactical destroyers, so I don't see why the Jackdaw would get such a disgrace.

Right now, I feel that developers have been so traumatized by the Drake that they are afraid to make any missile boat for us poor Caldari pilots to use. On the other hand, having the Garmur and Orthrus is apparently okay. What?
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#422 - 2015-05-19 15:24:21 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Lloyd Roses wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:

People were bitching about how bad the svipul will be prior to its introduction and now they are complaining it is flown to much...


Actually people were wtf-OP 50km artillery in prop mode. Then some were trololol ship with 2MASBs and a 10mn AB and 300dps+. But calling it bad, no one did that.


The most commonly expressed opinions in the Svipul feedback thread said it would be terrible and that nobody would fly it. We've accepted that the community as a whole underestimates the strength of Tactical Destroyers until someone proves to them how good they can be.

You are mostly right Fozzie, and please know I respect you and I try to present only reasonable suggestions.

If I recall the biggest complaints about the Svipul were around the weapon system and the optimal range bonus. People didn't realize how good the speed and small signature would compensate for some of the other perceived short comings.

With the Jackdaw, it has neither the speed nor signature of the Svipul, and we are having a hard time seeing how the agility will make up for the other short comings.

Could you share the some insight into how the design team would like to see the Jackdaw used? Is it as a rocket brawler? If so I can see it doing better than people think in this role.

But, if it is intended to be used equally as LML OR rocket I think the LML group is having a hard time seeing where this ship shines.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#423 - 2015-05-19 15:26:46 UTC
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:
Then why not all 4 of them?


Very good question, I don't know. I'd love to have the option to support-role them. Svipul can do this to some extend, the confessor will ever be the burning sword of ddom for me *shrug*

Azami Nevinyrall wrote:

Why specifically the Caldari T3 play logi?
Why not the Amarr and Gallente play support?

If you have 1 or 2 playing the support roles, you'll be stepping on the logi frigs and the T1/T2/T3 logi Cruisers' toes.

Keep the ships inline with the other ships in the same role. It makes next to no sense to do it otherwise!


With support I do not mean logi. I only brought up logistics to show than not all ships of one class need to be clones of each other in order to be viable.
Support is anything force multiplier, in a way. painters, webs, damps, disruptors, remote sebo, additional scrams you name it.

Just be honest here, if every T3D would be more or less the same, people will find the one doing it's job as SOLOPWNge^!^11! boat best and henceforth the other three will see less and less action. You saw this already after the svipul was introduced. Svipul fitted better in the kiting meta -> a lot more svipul than confessor, just as one example.



Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#424 - 2015-05-19 15:54:24 UTC
How can people not have seen the svipul as being OP right out of the box?

Also sisi is not exactly a true-to-life testbed for ships as people do 'fly to die' on there and the svipuls main strengths are inflated again in the TQ environment where money matters and people get scared and try to run.

Testing info on sisi can only outline a picture the colours are added on TQ. And the svipul looked competent from sisi before it went live and then it just backflipped on all expectations and oversized prop mods made them OP. I'm sure noone here needs the history lesson but jesus christ peope if you thought svipul was underpowered before launch you're a god damned liar.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#425 - 2015-05-19 16:12:07 UTC
Hey everyone. Thanks to those of you who have provided feedback so far.
We're going to try another all-new bonus to replace the tank bonus on the CTD skill: a 15% reduction in missile launcher reload time per level.

The flexibility that this bonus provides for in-combat ammo switching should be pretty interesting, without causing an oppressive increase in the best-case power level of the ship. At level 5, missile launchers would reload in 2.5 seconds.

This bonus won't be working correctly in the next SISI build tomorrow, but it will be in an upcoming build for you guys to try out.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Gorski Car
#426 - 2015-05-19 16:14:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Gorski Car
Yes that is way better. Good choice fozzie

(Would have loved a ECM bonus though because I hate people )

Collect this post
Torei Dutalis
IceBox Inc.
Rogue Caldari Union
#427 - 2015-05-19 16:16:34 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks to those of you who have provided feedback so far.
We're going to try another all-new bonus to replace the tank bonus on the CTD skill: a 15% reduction in missile launcher reload time per level.

The flexibility that this bonus provides for in-combat ammo switching should be pretty interesting, without causing an oppressive increase in the best-case power level of the ship. At level 5, missile launchers would reload in 2.5 seconds.

This bonus won't be working correctly in the next SISI build tomorrow, but it will be in an upcoming build for you guys to try out.



I'm glad you went with this idea, I strongly agree that it was the best of the lot suggested here and I think it fits perfectly with the theme of this ship class; adaptability.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#428 - 2015-05-19 16:18:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Lura Zara wrote:
Saerin Korvalu wrote:
Lura Zara wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Yeah the 50 per level bonus is intentionally one of the weaker ship bonuses, to keep the rest of the package balanced. I am open to considering other bonuses like the ECCM one, and I'm interested in other ideas you folks have for bonuses that don't have a huge impact on the ship power level while remaining flavourful for Caldari.


If I may say. Ide rather see the following if the 5% shield hp is off the table

75hp/level
+x% Shield booster cap need per cycle reduction.
+x% Shield booster boost amount [Like a built in shield amp instead of HP]


Some things like those. Having a active tank dessi instead of a passive tanking EHP Block would be nice.

So far the only things caldari have that have a Rep amount bonus is the Golem...



Having a bonus that caters to a specific type of tank eliminates the idea of the ship being a 'tactical' destroyer.


Thats not what tactical means.

Tactical: of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.

What your saying implies 'Broad."


Therefore, any of those as a hull bonus further reduces the concept of T3Ds, unless you meant that for the Defensive mode - Double active tank bonuses is can of worms in and of itself. Blink

Something like SB Activation cost reduction in place of ship Sig reduction could work.

~Flavour~

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

[Cruisers Online]
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#429 - 2015-05-19 16:23:28 UTC
so are you actually honestly out of ideas and just picking stuff? this new one is still really strange. can't you just cut a launcher and slot, then give it double damage? or drop its agility and give it an agility bonus? maybe the shield bonus breaking it should tell you something about how wonky shield tanking is, and get you to take a look at that.
while reload speed does address something I really dislike about rocket launchers, I'd prefer it if you'd just fix the silly low launcher capacity/high ammo volume/whatever you want to call it for all ships, rather than one of them.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#430 - 2015-05-19 16:25:18 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We're going to try another all-new bonus to replace the tank bonus on the CTD skill: a 15% reduction in missile launcher reload time per level.


That is... a very good idea Shocked!

Good job :)

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

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

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#431 - 2015-05-19 16:27:53 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks to those of you who have provided feedback so far.
We're going to try another all-new bonus to replace the tank bonus on the CTD skill: a 15% reduction in missile launcher reload time per level.

The flexibility that this bonus provides for in-combat ammo switching should be pretty interesting, without causing an oppressive increase in the best-case power level of the ship. At level 5, missile launchers would reload in 2.5 seconds.

This bonus won't be working correctly in the next SISI build tomorrow, but it will be in an upcoming build for you guys to try out.


quicker reload than blasters... a little too good i suggest .. also why 6 mids? .. my ferox only has 5 and its a bc does this seem right too you?

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
Hendrink Collie
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#432 - 2015-05-19 16:28:24 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks to those of you who have provided feedback so far.
We're going to try another all-new bonus to replace the tank bonus on the CTD skill: a 15% reduction in missile launcher reload time per level.


Oooooh. I dig that. +1
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#433 - 2015-05-19 16:30:13 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks to those of you who have provided feedback so far.
We're going to try another all-new bonus to replace the tank bonus on the CTD skill: a 15% reduction in missile launcher reload time per level.

The flexibility that this bonus provides for in-combat ammo switching should be pretty interesting, without causing an oppressive increase in the best-case power level of the ship. At level 5, missile launchers would reload in 2.5 seconds.

This bonus won't be working correctly in the next SISI build tomorrow, but it will be in an upcoming build for you guys to try out.


quicker reload than blasters... a little too good i suggest .. also why 6 mids? .. my ferox only has 5 and its a bc does this seem right too you?


ferox being down a slot compared to other BCs isn't right at all. doubt it'll ever get fixed though.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#434 - 2015-05-19 16:33:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
How can people not have seen the svipul as being OP right out of the box?

Also sisi is not exactly a true-to-life testbed for ships as people do 'fly to die' on there and the svipuls main strengths are inflated again in the TQ environment where money matters and people get scared and try to run.

Testing info on sisi can only outline a picture the colours are added on TQ. And the svipul looked competent from sisi before it went live and then it just backflipped on all expectations and oversized prop mods made them OP. I'm sure noone here needs the history lesson but jesus christ peope if you thought svipul was underpowered before launch you're a god damned liar.


You think this wasn't brought up ad nauseum in the previous thread? Blink

☑ Double tank bonus in Def
☑ Optimal range hull bonus
☑ ACs taking 0.0000000000000001 PG to fit
☑ Mass to base velocity is out of proportion - Confessor is 33% more massive in kg, with 2.1% difference in base velocities.

Idea: Swap Tracking one in SS with the Optimal range in hull - fixes Arty nanugafing, but then ACs.

Idea two: Optimal range for SS, Shield recharge time reduction for hull bonus w/ possible hull Shield attribute review afterwards.

Idea three: 66.6% Fall-off bonus in SS instead of the Tracking one, and Shield recharge one for hull.

Atm Svipul is faster, more EHP, same Cap recharge, better applied projection than a Confessor.

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

[Cruisers Online]
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#435 - 2015-05-19 16:34:53 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks to those of you who have provided feedback so far.
We're going to try another all-new bonus to replace the tank bonus on the CTD skill: a 15% reduction in missile launcher reload time per level.

The flexibility that this bonus provides for in-combat ammo switching should be pretty interesting, without causing an oppressive increase in the best-case power level of the ship. At level 5, missile launchers would reload in 2.5 seconds.

This bonus won't be working correctly in the next SISI build tomorrow, but it will be in an upcoming build for you guys to try out.


quicker reload than blasters... a little too good i suggest .. also why 6 mids? .. my ferox only has 5 and its a bc does this seem right too you?


ferox being down a slot compared to other BCs isn't right at all. doubt it'll ever get fixed though.


mm.. wouldn't be so bad if the drake had the same amount of mids

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
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#436 - 2015-05-19 16:36:35 UTC
i think this thread and D3's in general really demonstrate how much prop mods need too be class limited, you know how people will exploit everything.

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
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#437 - 2015-05-19 16:45:44 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
i think this thread and D3's in general really demonstrate how much prop mods need too be class limited, you know how people will exploit everything.


I've been saying that for over 3 months but people always parrot on about their options being removed nevermind that balance is a higher priority.
Great Cegun
Nomads of Republic
Smile 'n' Wave
#438 - 2015-05-19 16:47:48 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Great Cegun wrote:


The Jackdaw should be as fast as a confessor.
You should change the layout to 6/5/3,
Give it 4 launchers instead of 5,
Increase the role bonus to accomodate the DPS for the lost launcher, (maybe not a full increase to slightly nerf its dps?)
Keep the current PWG and lower the CPU a bit
Make a meaningful bonus with percentages, not this awful flat rate hp that has never been used before for a reason (its the complete opposite of what the fitting system in EVE is, as it is completely impermeable to changes in fitting, as opposed to a % bonus)
Swap the agility / speed bonus to 33 / 66%
Fix its god damned inertia
Increase its mass because otherwise it would


Can you produce a single justification of why this should be done?

Quote:
I guess kite Tristan takes a lot of inconvenience to jackdaw.


The above quote is not a justification. Fit light missiles or suffer being kited with rockets.


The main argument that the current TTX does not give freedom to create your own configuration. But I am ready to paint all a bit more precisely.

firstly speed. Agility course convenient indicator. but the game mechanics agility affects really on three things: 1. The speed of the warp outward 2. 3. triangular acceleration speed in low orbit.

1 - it makes sense when passing camps. However, we are talking about a combat situation where we ourselves want to kill someone, not just run away.

2 and 3 - the bottom line is that here directly affects the maximum speed if the ship does not have a speed of 1000, the special does not matter how much we will reach its maximum speed, or the speed with which we orbitet our enemy. I hope this is trivial.

Now launchers. Actually it is simple justice, that the ratio of slots and implements all T3 is equal to the greater of slots not occupied by guns and the smaller the longer guns can be used to overheat.

Now pg, if you ever probyvali fitit Corax, then you know the problem is that without mandatory crutches, the ship is going. Jackdaw will follow exactly the same problem.

Finally about slots, it is the culmination of the problem of creating your own configuration, the pilot is not able to properly calibrate the ship for themselves. And it stands out of TTX others T3 - confessor 6 5 3, Matar - 6 4 4, Gall - 6 4 4
it is quite logical that the Caldari would 6 5 3
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#439 - 2015-05-19 16:58:52 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i think this thread and D3's in general really demonstrate how much prop mods need too be class limited, you know how people will exploit everything.


I've been saying that for over 3 months but people always parrot on about their options being removed nevermind that balance is a higher priority.


the option to have missile and tackle immunity is good for the game and is an important and valid playstyle that needs to be protected

and having capitals that warp in 10 seconds, that's also important, and it would be unfair to fix it because then people would be sad
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#440 - 2015-05-19 17:04:22 UTC  |  Edited by: unidenify
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks to those of you who have provided feedback so far.
We're going to try another all-new bonus to replace the tank bonus on the CTD skill: a 15% reduction in missile launcher reload time per level.

The flexibility that this bonus provides for in-combat ammo switching should be pretty interesting, without causing an oppressive increase in the best-case power level of the ship. At level 5, missile launchers would reload in 2.5 seconds.

This bonus won't be working correctly in the next SISI build tomorrow, but it will be in an upcoming build for you guys to try out.



I admit that is not what I expect and I do am looking forward to see what impact that will have.