These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Assault Ships

First post First post
Author
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#41 - 2012-01-05 19:16:51 UTC
tbh make that 50% reduction in sig radius also affect cap activation cost for the mwd and you got a good role bonus..

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Svennig
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-01-05 19:41:21 UTC
I think this is a start, but it's literally a step off the line.

General points:

ArrowYou can't go around adding slots without adding enough CPU/PG to fit things in them. The Hawk, for example, is too hard to fit right now. If you're going to add a midslot, you need to add more than 10 CPU. Same with the Harpy - what are you putting in there that uses 10 CPU!???!
ArrowMWD bonus is lame. MWDs are harder to fit than ABs. They have a cap penalty, which penalises everything apart from projectiles and rockets (and therefore is yet another buff to the jaguar and wolf - I fly both, and I think they're OP right now). It penalises active tanking, which is already not used. Also, it will significantly reduce the usage of interceptors, as there is now almost no line between the two ship classes after this buff.
Arrow The jaguar and the wolf were already good enough - I fly both of them. They didn't need buffing, and with the buffs you're testing they will now both be seriously OP.

Specific points per ship:

I'll only discuss the ones I fly

Harpy: increase in low is nice, as is the bonus to shield resistance. Needs more CPU. A lot more CPU. It needed +40 CPU before you added a midslot. So, call it +64.

Hawk: The bonus to active tanking is useless. It's terrible, change it to something else. Thanks for the RoF and midslot, but again needs a lot more CPU.

Shameless quote other poster: Also, you still haven't fixed the Wolf/Jaguar bonus problem (the Jaguar is the Vagabond-style fast autocannon ship but has a range bonus appropriate for artillery, while the Wolf would work well as an artillery platform but gets a falloff bonus for ACs).

Jaguar: needs to get a midslot rather than a low.
Kalaratiri
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#43 - 2012-01-05 19:50:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Kalaratiri
Svennig wrote:

ArrowYou can't go around adding slots without adding enough CPU/PG to fit things in them. The Hawk, for example, is too hard to fit right now. If you're going to add a midslot, you need to add more than 10 CPU.


Nope.

[Hawk DualMSE]

[Empty high slot]
Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket
Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket
Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket
Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket

Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
J2b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Medium Shield Extender II
Medium shield Extender II

Damage Control II
Micro Auxiliary Power Core I

Small Ancillary Current Router I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I

Needs a +2% pg implant.

OP much?

EDIT:

Actually read the rest of your post. What?

Svennig wrote:
Harpy: increase in low is nice, as is the bonus to shield resistance. Needs more CPU. A lot more CPU. It needed +40 CPU before you added a midslot. So, call it +64.


..Why? What do you need that much extra CPU for?

Svennig wrote:
Hawk: The bonus to active tanking is useless. It's terrible, change it to something else. Thanks for the RoF and midslot, but again needs a lot more CPU.


What? Active tanked hawk is at least as good as a dual rep Vengeance, if not better due to more dps. You might be trying to use a small booster. Don't, switch to medium.

Svennig wrote:
Jaguar: needs to get a midslot rather than a low.


What..? Why?

She's mad but she's magic, there's no lie in her fire.

This is possibly one of the worst threads in the history of these forums.  - CCP Falcon

I don't remember when last time you said something that wasn't either dumb or absurd. - Diana Kim

Ava Starfire
Khushakor Clan
#44 - 2012-01-05 19:54:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Ava Starfire
Svennig wrote:
I think this is a start, but it's literally a step off the line.

General points:

ArrowYou can't go around adding slots without adding enough CPU/PG to fit things in them. The Hawk, for example, is too hard to fit right now. If you're going to add a midslot, you need to add more than 10 CPU. Same with the Harpy - what are you putting in there that uses 10 CPU!???!
ArrowMWD bonus is lame. MWDs are harder to fit than ABs. They have a cap penalty, which penalises everything apart from projectiles and rockets (and therefore is yet another buff to the jaguar and wolf - I fly both, and I think they're OP right now). It penalises active tanking, which is already not used. Also, it will significantly reduce the usage of interceptors, as there is now almost no line between the two ship classes after this buff.
Arrow The jaguar and the wolf were already good enough - I fly both of them. They didn't need buffing, and with the buffs you're testing they will now both be seriously OP.

Specific points per ship:

I'll only discuss the ones I fly

Harpy: increase in low is nice, as is the bonus to shield resistance. Needs more CPU. A lot more CPU. It needed +40 CPU before you added a midslot. So, call it +64.

Hawk: The bonus to active tanking is useless. It's terrible, change it to something else. Thanks for the RoF and midslot, but again needs a lot more CPU.

Shameless quote other poster: Also, you still haven't fixed the Wolf/Jaguar bonus problem (the Jaguar is the Vagabond-style fast autocannon ship but has a range bonus appropriate for artillery, while the Wolf would work well as an artillery platform but gets a falloff bonus for ACs).

Jaguar: needs to get a midslot rather than a low.


What? So let me get this straight... you want a 5 midslot, falloff bonused Jag, and you cant fit a hawk or harpy.

What?

"There is no strength in numbers; have no such misconception." -Jayka Vofur, "Warfare in the North"

Godcon
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-01-05 20:26:43 UTC
I really wish you guys would of been more creative with the role bonus, there was a lot of room for cool bonuses that fit Assault Frigates better.
Toterra
Parental Control
Didn't want that Sov anyway.
#46 - 2012-01-05 20:27:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Toterra
I am not sure if I like the changes or not, however I think I understand the logic behind the 50% mwd bonus. When flying solo or in a small AF gang in 0.0 it can be pretty hard to mwd burn back to the gate fast enough. The 50% bonus would give a second or two more time before being webbed/scrammed/pulverized and would significantlly increase the survivability of an AF trying to avoid a gate camp. I agree that for low-sec and AB fit is more common, but in 0.0 MWD are used to survive gatecamps and for that reason alone I like that change. As for the rest of the changes... they need some serious tweaking to be sure.
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#47 - 2012-01-05 20:59:24 UTC
To bad there is no such thing as web resisting bonuses in the game. :(

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#48 - 2012-01-05 21:06:09 UTC
Flistir wrote:
I'm surprised that people are still suggesting afterburner bonuses. I thought that the prenerf Dramiel would have made everyone learn what a bad idea it is to combine silly speeds with an afterburner.


The problem with the Dramiel was many things. Not just isolated to the AB.

Get educated please.
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
#49 - 2012-01-05 21:17:02 UTC
This boost is the easy way out.

Instead of adding a very uncreative role bonus and an extra slot, consider tweaking the stats of all ships so more creative setups are possible: slightly more CPU and PG would go a long way on many AFs. If that's still not good enough, tweak some hardpoints or try moving slots around.

If any ships are in need of extra slots it's the lower tier T1 frigates.

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#50 - 2012-01-05 21:30:51 UTC
AFTERBURNER FRIGATES DO NOT WORK.


If you can not go at least 2km/s (2.5-3km/s if you want to handle the best opponents), cruisers and battlecruisers are faster than you. Since they are faster than you, you can not orbit them (simple geometry). Transversal drops to near zero, and it doesn't matter how low your sig is, you're still getting hit by 500+ dps. Against a good BC/HAC, an AB assault frigate has a life expectancy of less than 15 seconds.

So, the problem with an afterburner bonus is simple:

If the bonus is small, AFs still suck (for PvP at least). They aren't fast enough with an AB, they still get kited, and you still have to fit a MWD on them. Except now your grid/CPU/cap are balanced around an AB you can't use, and CCP is convinced that AFs are "fixed" and won't give them a real boost.

If the bonus is large, as in enough to reach MWD speeds with only an AB, AFs become game-breaking. This is what happened with the last attempt to give them an AB bonus: they became too fast for their sig radius, and virtually immune to anything besides another frigate. And don't say this was because of the oversized ABs, any AB bonus that gives AFs enough speed to reduce damage from medium guns is going to have the same problem.

End result: AFs need to be balanced around fitting a MWD.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2012-01-05 21:32:37 UTC
The Retribution has tracking issues against other frigs in point blank range. It can't hit them properly even with Gatling Pulse Lasers (these are the laser with the highest tracking).

Maybe change the 5% tracking bonus to 7.5% that all other ships get?
Caneb
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2012-01-05 21:33:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Caneb
MWD sig bonus? No thanks. In my opinion Assault Ships are meant to use afterburners.

That said, I wouldn't want an afterburner speed bonus, because as the Dramiel showed, doing 2k/s with 30m sig is just broken.

What I would want in assault ships is a decreased mass. As far as I know, there are few T2 ships that have much worse base stats than their T1 parents. Assault Frigates are an exception to this, having 20-30% larger mass (equaling worse agility and acceleration) across the board compared to their T1 counterparts.

Like everyone else, I think the role bonus needs to be rethought. How about a bonus to overheating? That would give AFs a way to close distance when using ABs, but without the danger of creating a ship that can be permanently unhittable.


As for specifics..

Vengeance looks good. With the RoF bonus it might actually do more damage with its intended weapon system than with autocannons as it does now.

A single midslot on the Retribution would be fine IF it was exceptionally good as a pure dps ship. As it is, a Wolf does more damage and can tackle. So in liu of a hefty damage boost, a second mid is welcome. The rest of the changes look good as well, as far as fitting numbers go.

Jaguar should have a falloff bonus, not an optimal bonus, because artillery/beams/rails on frigates in general is useless outside of some very specific comedy fits. Not sure what do do with the spare low slot, since most current fits are tight enough as it is. Extra nano I guess. The tracking bonus is gravy.

As for the Wolf I'm not sure if extra CPU is what's needed. A few more points of power grid would be more welcome so you could fit 200mm guns with a 400mm plate. Again, the extra low will be either a nano or maybe a tracking enhancer, which would fit even without the added CPU.

Hawk should get rid of its active tank bonus in favor of something else. A cap recharge bonus like the Vengeance would make it better at active tanking, while making it not completely useless if you opt for a buffer tank.

Ishkur needs the +10% drone damage bonus that all the other Gallente drone carriers have, OR the +5 drone bay bonus needs to include +5mbit bandwidth so it can use medium drones at high enough skill levels.

I've never flown the Enyo or Harpy so I won't comment on those.
Malissin
The Highwaymen's Society
#53 - 2012-01-05 21:40:06 UTC
AF V crew checking in.

I see what you're trying to do here with the MWD Role bonus, but my thoughts are divided on what that will actually do to the ships. To those saying that MWDs are not useful to the denizens of lowsec, well that's just patently false. I regularly fly a fitting on both the Enyo and the Vengeance that uses them just fine...however, in a Solo PvP environment, I'm not sure how much use a sig reduction would be against Small or even Medium weapons. AFs having Small weapons themselves, thus fighting well within Scram/Web/Neut range, it doesn't seem like it would be doing much. In fleet engagements, it makes a bit more sense, but isn't that what Interceptors were made for?

As to all the various extra fitting slots; you're about to completely kill the AFs current target selection for solo PvP. All the buffs in the world don't matter if we just scare away potential targets now. As it is now, you can still find overconfident Rifter/Dramiel/Whatever pilots willing to take a shot at you, but I can't see that lasting long if the changes went through as proposed.

Just brainstorming here, but how about a resistance bonus to E-War? 10% per level or some such, so that Webs didn't slow you down as much, Neuts didn't drain your capacitor so hard, ECM had less chance to jam, etc...With that, you'd potentially get a heavy tackler that didn't step on the toes of the Interceptor. It wouldn't be as good at actually landing the tackle, but could hold on better once in Scram range. Barring that, as long as we're stealing bonuses from other ship classes, just give it the 5% reduction in heat buildup from T3s and call it a day.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2012-01-05 21:46:33 UTC
For those who have no idea about weapon tracking and such, an AF in scramble range is extremely difficult to hit.
This is without an afterburner. The whole purpose of the MWD bonus was so that AFs could move around the battlefield without being blapped out of the sky.

As Merin states above, an AB bonus would either be too strong or too weak, there is no middle ground.

As far as I'm concerned with the MWD bonus, the AFs are working exactly as I had intended them to.
They are quick, damaging, and tankable, while not immune to incoming damage.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

Duke Thunderhorse
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#55 - 2012-01-05 21:52:18 UTC
The first time I flew an AF was in militia fleets where my role was explained as being the back-up for the interceptor pilot. The MWD bonus seems fitting and will finally give the assault frigate a defined role in larger fleets. Now all those F1 mashing gorillas in null sec can stop whining about the useless assault frig.

However, it is a bonus I will not use in lowsec solo PVP. I'd like to see a bonus that benefits both worlds... I'd also like a billion isk please.

As a Wolf pilot, I should be loving another low slot. 5 lows!? Seriously? The combinations are mind-blowing. Yeah nobody will fight me, but nobody fights me now. What I'd really like is an extra mid so I can fit ECCM for that inevitable lurking falcon alt. No seriously, please just leave these ships as they are. Maybe give the Retribution an extra mid... maybe... Or maybe make Amarr pilots continue to suffer. Idk/Idc. You already messed everything up with the changes to blasters. Please quit screwing with my life! Gosh! :-*

Bob Niac
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2012-01-05 22:07:04 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Hello

Please post your feedback about Assault Ship balancing in this thread.

Thank you.


The changes are:

All Assault Ships

* Added role bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty



Wait ... what? No ... Please .. less ships dependent on MWD, please. What about this:

Role Bonus for (example) Hawk:
xx% Reduction in the power grid and xx% CPU need of modules that require Shield Upgrades.
xx% reduction in capacitor need of shield boosters
xx% reduction in cycle time of medium shield boosters.

And for Harpy:

Role Bonus
xx% Reduction in the [grid and cpu] of Medium Hybrid Turrets.
xx% Reduction in the capacitor need of Med Hybrid Turrets


OR ....

Harpy

Role Bonus:
99% Reduction in the Power grid need of Siege Modules
50% reduction on CPU requirements of Siege Modules
50% reduction in cycle time of Siege Modules
50% reduction in activation cost of Siege modules.

kind of partial to plan 'B'

[u]I <3 Logistics:[/u] Pilot of all  T2 logi and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrid. I don't make games, I play them. I get that ppl are passionate about change. I post here to plant seeds. You see your idea as is? Holy **** you win! So let's post, and see what the DEVs and our peers use.

Godcon
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#57 - 2012-01-05 22:15:44 UTC
I guess this is a little biased because the only AF I fly is the Harpy and with a MWD I will always been in scram range making the buff nearly useless for me, unless I am in larger gangs or fleets.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#58 - 2012-01-05 22:16:50 UTC
Godcon wrote:
I guess this is a little biased because the only AF I fly is the Harpy and with a MWD I will always been in scram range making the buff nearly useless for me, unless I am in larger gangs or fleets.


How exactly do you plan to GET into range without a MWD?

The answer of course is you can't, and the MWD bonus allows you to take less damage approaching the target.
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#59 - 2012-01-05 22:31:39 UTC
I think the MWD boost is a bone thrown to soloers, because it's not hard to find an interceptor pilot who can fit a warp scrambler, turn off the MWD of an enemy, and have an afterburning assault frigate catch up or warp in and dispense own.

I think that going as far as saying AB assault frigates are worthless is dumb because this is a game where you can have multiple people (or an alt) on your side, in different ship classes. Scary, I know.

I have yet to actually test the new buffs so I will reserve judgement on whether this is a good or bad fourth buff. But I would like to see this buff be put across the board rather than just for MWDs to make both types of fittings more viable.
Wot I Think
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-01-05 22:32:50 UTC
IMHO, in terms of Assault Frigates the appropriate buff would be: cutting the production cost by 75%.

THE MWD thing is neat, but don't care.