These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tawa Suyo
Hun-Select
#361 - 2012-01-09 18:46:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tawa Suyo
DARKSTAR POWNYOUALL wrote:
I think that your post already confirmed you don't have a clue about frig combat anyway. For starters, buffing the weaker ones to the level of stronger ones = good thing (if done with care). Buffing the stronger ones even further? bad thing. I don't know how the hell you think giving Wolf an extra low slot, a tracking bonus to make up for lack of web, and +20% to armor buffer is "leaving it approximately the same level of power", but I can guarantee it won't be able to "gank that with multiple t1 frigs just as easily"


It's a flat increase to armour not a percentage increase. The total increased ehp is a much lower percentage if you're actually fitting it as a pure brawler.

The additional lowslot doesn't actually allow you to magically fit any module you want given the very moderate increase in fitting room.

The tracking bonus only means that you can't use a dual prop/fast ab only frigate to get under its tracking any more and given any competent wolf pilot already carried drop to prevent this, it really doesn't affect the overall power of the wolf at all. It still has the same weaknesses of speed/projection when compared to many other frigates which are the holes you exploit to beat them on TQ currently (or, if they fit as a vaga wolf to address these, then it remains a much weaker brawler than other fits).

And I appreciate the personal slights, my killboard will also demonstrate my complete lack of experience flying a variety frigates (both solo and in gangs)...
Mimiru Minahiro
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#362 - 2012-01-09 18:46:34 UTC
Tawa Suyo wrote:
Mimiru Minahiro wrote:
Can someone post the sig of wolf and Ishkur using halo set+loki booster? Doing the math in my head I think it is about 60 and 65 respectively (maybe a little less)


Probably.

I can also make a Hawk tank 1438 dps cap stable and without heat on TQ right now.

Not entirely sure what your point is...


It was a question not a point. Tinfoil much?

Thanks for verifying rough numbers though.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#363 - 2012-01-09 18:57:55 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
There is way too much hypothesizing about the end of frigate combat in this thread. Dramiels did more to that end then future AF could ever do. The latter for starters are slow and have to commit and win or die by their nature.

Most of the angst is over AF vs. other small ships down the road. Fine - let's look at that.

Destroyers -
Thrasher (Gold Standard)
Highest Gank/ Lowest EHP Shield Fit w/ Faction Ammo - 486 DPS/ 5.36k EHP
Lowest Gank/ Highest EHP Armor Fit w/ Faction Ammo - 304 DPS/ 9.28k EHP
Balanced Gank/ EHP Shield Fit w/ Faction Ammo - 434 DPS with 7.23k EHP

I have posted a couple times now that I feel the Cormorant and Catalyst do not have enough grid to fit properly to do their job. The numbers above on the Thrasher are nothing to blush at though. I'd feel comfortable engaging most AF in that.

Interceptors -
They need a touch-up. The Dramiel shoved most of these aside and they haven't come back even after the Dramiel nerf. I'd add T2 resists and increase fittings a bit. Maybe some more hit points too. Let them fit bigger guns and/or more tank. After the hybrid buff I actually looked at the Raptor (Craptor). It can fit bigger hybrids then before- but empties it's cap suprisingly fast using them. In addition to being the hardest interceptor to fit it's also the slowest and largest. Roll

EAF -
Obvious counterweight is obvious. These need to be fixed!

Faction Frigates -
Wait till the dust settles and revisit.

Tech I -
Let me refer you to the cruiser threads where Stabber pilots ***** that they can't take a vaga... o wait. They don't exist. Straight



Indeed. I personally don't care that much about these changes. However, these ships will encroach into interceptor territory (which does frustrate me). I don't care much for the signature bonus because it's currently a joke (so giving it to assault frigates is also a joke). However, giving assault frigates a signature bonus will make interceptors obsolete. Currently, the only faction navy frigate worth flying over a similarly cost assault frigate is a Imperial Navy Slicer. However, it's possible for a faction navy frigate to engage a assault frigate effectively. Not after these changes (for the most part). So, I'm not ignoring what is fact with these changes.

There are also those who believe they have some great insight because they believe they are the only ones that have thought about using dual stasis webifiers on a frigate. STFU! That has been around so long that even new pilots to the game who saw these changes suggest doing that to a Hawk and Harpy. All active defence set-ups will blow the aforementioned set-ups away; active Enyo, Ishkur, Hawk, Vengeance, and Harpy (also, Jaguar with a interesting set-up without a cap booster). All those are able to tank 1 - 2 assault frigates depending on set-ups (using combat boosters even more so) and able to project damage all over warp scrambler range.

This will all increase the length of frigate engagements. I'm not sure how many of you have engage another active tanked ship in a active tank ship. Takes long as is pretty boring.

It's possible only the assault frigates that can operate @ rage will offer a different dynamic (Retribution mainly, but Wolf if you believe in that set-up)...



-proxyyyy
DARKSTAR POWNYOUALL
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#364 - 2012-01-09 19:10:39 UTC  |  Edited by: DARKSTAR POWNYOUALL
Tawa Suyo wrote:


It's a flat increase to armour not a percentage increase. The total increased ehp is a much lower percentage if you're actually fitting it as a pure brawler.

The additional lowslot doesn't actually allow you to magically fit any module you want given the very moderate increase in fitting room.

The tracking bonus only means that you can't use a dual prop/fast ab only frigate to get under its tracking any more and given any competent wolf pilot already carried drop to prevent this, it really doesn't affect the overall power of the wolf at all. It still has the same weaknesses of speed/projection when compared to many other frigates which are the holes you exploit to beat them on TQ currently (or, if they fit as a vaga wolf to address these, then it remains a much weaker brawler than other fits).

And I appreciate the personal slights, my killboard will also demonstrate my complete lack of experience flying a variety frigates (both solo and in gangs)...


Roll I know its a flat increase to armor. And guess what percentage of its base armor the increase is? 20% !Shocked i never said it was a 20% bonus to total EHP, which is a theoretical number that includes many things such a shield and hull hp and resists.

the tracking bonus ONLY means you cant use a fast ship to get under its guns??? that is wolfs biggest weakness, it has the dps, tank, ability to pick damage type, and can hit for great dps all the way out to edge of scram range thanks to falloff bonus, BUT had trouble with tracking up close thanks to no tracking bonus + no web combined.... yet and still with all that it is STILL one of the best AF's out. Now you think taking away one of its biggest weakness, giving it a slot that even with only 10 cpu boost can be EASILY tuned to fit another gyro for even crazier dps, or a slot just to be simply used for another adaptive/reactive plate for an even sillier sized tank, with no need to compromise fit at all? Oh and thanks for making the point that they don't need drop booster anymore - now they can pack sooth sayer for even more dps and range in the form of falloff boost !

tbh wolf the nicest bonus of all... and if you think that sort of improvement is necessary for it i don't know what else to tell you - learn to fly assault frigs better
BeanBagKing
The Order of Atlas
#365 - 2012-01-09 19:26:49 UTC
I have to agree with what most have said about the MWD bonus, it's kinda pointless. I have tried the fit with a few assault ships as a "heavy interceptor" it worked alright, and has it's moments, but for the most part people don't fit MWD's on them. This area is already covered by interceptors. Instead maybe an AB speed bonus?

I disagree with what someone said about the active tank. Most of my assault ships are active tanked. I don't run them in large fleets with logi where they would just be alphaed anyway, I run them in small gang or roaming where active tank is enough to keep me alive anyway. I usually use cap boosters to keep myself from running dry, although some fits can be cap stable even without this. I've found I prefer this over a resist/buffer tank because most frigates just don't have enough of a buffer, but maybe that's a personal choice.

I think you should really look at the MWD bonus, but for the rest it looks like a good start. I'll be happy to get my assault ships out on the field more :)
Tawa Suyo
Hun-Select
#366 - 2012-01-09 19:29:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tawa Suyo
DARKSTAR POWNYOUALL wrote:
Roll I know its a flat increase to armor. And guess what percentage of its base armor the increase is? 20% !Shocked i never said it was a 20% bonus to total EHP, which is a theoretical number that includes many things such a shield and hull hp and resists.

No, I believe the exact phrase was armour buffer, something that is far more greatly affected by the fitting of plates than a base increase...

DARKSTAR POWNYOUALL wrote:
the tracking bonus ONLY means you cant use a fast ship to get under its guns??? that is wolfs biggest weakness, it has the dps, tank, ability to pick damage type, and can hit for great dps all the way out to edge of scram range thanks to falloff bonus, BUT had trouble with tracking up close thanks to no tracking bonus + no web combined.... yet and still with all that it is STILL one of the best AF's out.

No, the fact it has to choose between being a strong brawler or a strong kiter is the biggest weakness, the tracking merely requires the use of a relatively cheap booster.

And it is an average if versatile AF, it is still surpassed by the top three in a straight fight (or beaten by many faction frigates if fitted to counter them).


DARKSTAR POWNYOUALL wrote:
Now you think taking away one of its biggest weakness, giving it a slot that even with only 10 cpu boost can be EASILY tuned to fit another gyro for even crazier dps, or a slot just to be simply used for another adaptive/reactive plate for an even sillier sized tank, with no need to compromise fit at all? Oh and thanks for making the point that they don't need drop booster anymore - now they can pack sooth sayer for even more dps and range versatility

Adding a gyro requires sacrificing other parts of the fit, resulting a very similar ship (especially if wishing to fit a repper for extended roaming or to mitigate some taken damage in a multi-fight 1 vs many engagement).

The addition of a single ANM? Yeh, that's a pretty minor boost to a fit.

As for using sooth sayer, the only time where that would have a major effect is when flying a long range vaga wolf fit where you are engaging in the middle of the falloff graph (where a few km difference can have a dramatic effect on the damage), such fits had no need for drop anyway. The increased damage in a scram range from using soothsayer would be negligible anyway due to either being kited at the edge of scram or point blank brawling, either situation taking place at the ends of the curve, where the damage change is less steep.

DARKSTAR POWNYOUALL wrote:
tbh wolf the nicest bonus of all... and if you think that sort of improvement is necessary for it i don't know what to tell you - but learn to fly assault frigs better

Why thank you. I do generally endeavour to do so, hence the variety of ships and fits flown. It seems more productive than sticking to one ship/niche fit for the majority of my engagements.
Lorkajj
Pragma Region
#367 - 2012-01-09 19:37:19 UTC
Pretty much a total noob here so feel free to ignore, but here’s my take on the proposed role bonus.

I don’t think there’s any disagreement that the MWD bonus will be useful and open up some new opportunities for AFs (as sturdy tackle), though some are rather annoyed that it would leave their favored AB fits without a benefit from the role bonus. I also agree with most of the points raised against the proposed AB-boosting replacements, they either won’t be powerful enough to let you catch an MWD cruiser/bc or they’ll be overpowered because there is no way for people to turn it off once you are close (like a scram does to an MWD).

However, I also don’t think either really fits with what an AF is. A mobility increase would undoubtedly make AFs better off in the game but I don’t think it fits. In my mind, at least, an AF is a frigate made to punch above its weight class. It should excel at hitting something bigger than it is. To this end, I think the role bonus it receives should be some form of protection against one of the two ewar that disproportionately harms smaller ships more than larger ships: ECM and/or energy neuts.

ECM hits smaller ships harder because it works off of sensor strength, which smaller ships have less of than larger ones. This leads to obnoxious things like a single falcon permajamming an entire frigate-based roam. For ECM resistance it could have its sensor strength for purposes of opposing ECM be calculated as 3x its actual sensor strength. This would put them in the 25-40 range of sensor strength, harder to jam than a BS but not impossible, with the higher sensor strength AFs being roughly equivalent to a BS w/ one ECCM.

This would have the drawback of really hampering the Kitsune’s role but, honestly, I am not particularly displeased if an ECM ship loses relative power as the mechanic is obnoxious and needs to be seriously reevaluated (and EAFs in general need a rework independent of the strength/weakness of ECM).


Energy neutralization and cap warfare also hits frigates harder than other ship classes due to their much smaller total capacitor size. A large neut Will completely bottom out nearly all frigs in a single cycle. While the long cycle time does allow for regen to keep point going it also means that weapons which use cap get turned off if a larger vessel has a neutralizer. This can be somewhat countered with a cap booster, but only by some AFs since the others do not have a mid to spare (most notably the Retribution and the Enyo, who both require cap to shoot and also have the fewest mid-slots).

I would propose a phased in resistance to energy neutralizers applied cumulatively like this:
1-50: 10% reduction
51-100: 25%
101-200: 50%
201-300: 75%
301+: 90%

A T2 small neut, which does 54 base energy damage, would now neutralize 48 energy.
A T2 small neut used by a sentinel would be 86.5 (instead of 108).
A T2 med neut, which does 180 base, would now neutralize 122.5 energy.
A T2 med neut used by a curse/pilgrim would be 147.5 (instead of 360).
A T2 large neut, which does 600 base, would now neutralize 187.5 energy.

This makes larger neuts less effective against AFs without completely destroying the Sentinel’s ability to neut AFs (~20% less effective than currently). It would, however, more than halve the effects of a med neut on a curse/pilgrim against an AF.

Anyway, that’s my take on it. Take it for what little it’s worth.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#368 - 2012-01-09 19:49:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
Some of those ships have pathetic PG for their intended role as I recall. Adding slots isn't going to help this, (though it's much appreciated); and you still won't be able to fit these ships to tank or DPS as they properly should. - ignore

Most of the changes I see here are pretty good aside from that; and especially impressed with the reduced Sig radius penalty. That is super awesome. Don't see why AB has to be bonused as suggested in another post.

I'll go back through the other posts and bring up EFT to see if I have any more input; or if my assessment of the PG limitations is limited to just a ship or two, or more broad spectrum.



edit:

Too many posts here to reasonably cycle through in a short amount of time.

I noticed the PG issue was not so much the amount, as the limitations imposed by fittings. Specifically, the Jaguar and Wolf are limited by the PG requirements of some or all of their Projectile weapons. Such, that the highest PG using weapon on any other assault ship platform; has considerably less PG consumption on those platforms than the Projectiles do on theirs.

Also, The Hawk and Vengeance are somewhat imbalanced for DPS when compared to the rest of the assault ships. Vengeance, in part makes up for this; given its fitting Rockets that leave plenty of fitting open having low PG. Rockets have very limited range however.

The Hawk however consumes much of its PG fitting Missile Launchers, while having ~1/2 half the available DPS of other Assault ships.

All this is just baseline examination of course; and doesn't take any of the new fitting changes or bonuses into account. I used highest PG turrets too; which in all cases are long range. Average DPS was 115 or so with just base ship, Level 5, and guns fitted using base ammo in EFT.

The Rocket platform Vengeance compares with 82 DPS, and short range Rocket, and the Hawk with 50 DPS and missile range. Incongruous if you ask me; especially as ships like the Ishkur get drones as an added benefit. To me, that appears to make these ships severely outclassed.

My original assesment of the PG, (I'd forgotten); was actually directed at Covert Ops frigates, as I recall. Cheetah has something like 13? Very sad.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#369 - 2012-01-09 20:12:38 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
My browser crashed with my long reply Ugh
So forgive me is this sounds harsh or anything, I just want to rewrite it all Lol

@PinkKnife
On TQ, most ships who are looking for close range combat will fit a scrambler. The ability to limit ones escape & propulsion is extremely valuable. I trying see what you're so concerned about, as that's pretty much the norm.

Also on TQ, afterburning fits typically trump equivalent AB fits when entering close range.
This is also normal and doesn't change anything with the ships. If you are in an MWD fit AF looking to fight another AF, you need to be aware of what your target is using and if it's worth your risk or not. All the AFs are sufficient damage projection across scramble range, but the advantage (fitting/cap/combat speed) is tipped in favour of the AB fit.

Each has their advantages and disadvantages.
The goal isn't to replace AFs with ABs, but rather add extra versatility allowing people to fit MWDs.

Judging by your post it seems to me like you've already noticed that fitting can MWD can be advantageous.
Just keep in mind that if you had even attempted to pull a stunt like that on TQ, you would have been shredded long before you'd managed to get some tackle Blink


A first thought, why are you fighting everyone on this? Why are you pushing back against any criticism so much?

My point was that the role bonus is largely irrelevant as almost all AF ranges dictate they stay within 10km and thus are in web/scram range. So while it's useful for closing distance, I don't see how or what the point is. Interceptors already do a better job at it. The shredding of AFs on TQ is largely also a part of their lack of buffs, and not just the role bonus.
Sylvous
Bigger than Jesus
#370 - 2012-01-09 20:13:52 UTC
@ Tawa Suyo

I think you are missing one of the biggest points made by DARKSTAR. Comparatively the AFs will all be balanced with respect to each other, but as soon as you consider any other ship, they are now overpowered. Destroyers, T1 frigs, faction frigs, cruisers and to some extent battlecruisers will all suffer for this. Faction frigs are meant to be near equal, destroyers are meant to be superior, and T1 frigs are meant to be beatable (all ready the case).

Now I'm not saying that a T2 frig can't beat a destroyer now, but the pilot has to do some serious fitting considerations to take one on. Faction frigs are almost on par with T2 frigs because they don't have the T2 resists, but cost a significant amount to obtain. Essentially what is happening is we are making all AFs similar to a Hookbill, just giving it T2 resists. They are indeed balanced amongst each other, but its the consideration of the rest of the game that is concerning.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#371 - 2012-01-09 20:44:52 UTC
Also, could someone straighten out the neck/head on the Merlin/Hawk/Hary Models. Looking at it has always thrown me off. It's actually angled slightly to the right, (anatomical perspective), like it's swiveled its "head" in that direction to look at something.

Okay, not a huge deal; but it's bugged me since the first time i sat in a station ship spinning and looked at one. That was some time ago now; but I'll hardly fly one anymore as a result of it.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
#372 - 2012-01-09 20:46:13 UTC
Sylvous wrote:
@ Tawa Suyo

I think you are missing one of the biggest points made by DARKSTAR. Comparatively the AFs will all be balanced with respect to each other, but as soon as you consider any other ship, they are now overpowered. Destroyers, T1 frigs, faction frigs, cruisers and to some extent battlecruisers will all suffer for this. Faction frigs are meant to be near equal, destroyers are meant to be superior, and T1 frigs are meant to be beatable (all ready the case).

Now I'm not saying that a T2 frig can't beat a destroyer now, but the pilot has to do some serious fitting considerations to take one on. Faction frigs are almost on par with T2 frigs because they don't have the T2 resists, but cost a significant amount to obtain. Essentially what is happening is we are making all AFs similar to a Hookbill, just giving it T2 resists. They are indeed balanced amongst each other, but its the consideration of the rest of the game that is concerning.


There is another part of that equation though. It's how small ships hold up to larger ones. In that area all small ships have taken a real hit. Nuets are very popular. Most cruisers and above fit them. AC got a tracking boost with the projectile buff. TE are prevalent in many fits too. Blasters just got a tracking buff. The end result is that the age of fast tacklers - interceptors - is kaput. You see HICS and Recons doing most of the tackling in Nullsec. Frigates are still popular in lowsec, but that in some ways is the last bastion. All the small ships - interceptors, EAF, Faction - could use a revisit and a possible buff.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#373 - 2012-01-09 21:42:39 UTC
ok I've been seriously flying frigates for likw 3 years out of time in eve. i LOVE THEM. so I'm going to post my main idea here again.

Role bonus
200% increase in warp speed

This would make assault ships exit out of warp much fast than other ships. Meaning they can catch targets that try to run. See imo AF need a 4th bonus, but are still pretty badass already for their cost. A change like this allows them to cover a role that no other ship has without directly increasing or decreasing their ability in combat.

that said, they still need the new 4th bonus you've been adding, so woot to that.

seriously we should be able to watch someone warping, do our best by watching which way they go into the sky box, click on said target and warp, and with enough skill and reaction time, end up waiting of them on the other side of that warp tunnel. Come on guys, that's f***ing badas right?

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#374 - 2012-01-09 21:45:29 UTC
@Sylvous
I'll start by saying that everyone would *only* fly AFs is a bit of a hyperbole.
Cruisers, Battlecruisers, select faction frigates, and even EAFs counter them fairly well.

The fights are still very fast, unless you start counting racial counters (wolf/retri, enyo/ishkur)
which can admittedly take a while (no different than now). None of these ships have had their
actual tanking ability increased (except for the 200 points) and they have all had their damage
application increased (be it dps or range), so if anything the fights are even faster.

Destroyers are designed to fight frigates, so if you're fitting them otherwise, you're not
going to do as well. That's like saying a small gun Thorax does poorly against its medium gun
variant.

Once again, the thought of AFs overtaking interceptors is a silly one.
Interceptors primary goal is fast tackle. Assault frigates do not offer that.
The MWD bonus is 50%, not 75% like interceptors. AFs are also significantly slower,
less agile, fatter, and without the tackle cap bonus.

I feel I need to constantly point out that cruisers & Destroyers are still able to kill AFs.
It may not be super simple but you can still do it. The ships are no faster or tankier in scramble
range than they currently are on TQ. The slots changes allow them to work better with their bonuses
and the MWD changes allow them to work better everywhere. God forbid if player skill needs to be factored into a fight.


@Bloodpetal
While that may be true, universally changing MWDs is a massive undertaking and would require rebalancing for all the ships.
ALL the AFs are neut resistant if they have a Nos fit, and they are all difficult to shake.
A resistance to webs or neuts would make them extremely difficult to shake, and immunity to the MWD disabling scramblers would be an uneccesary change.
Small neuts are by far the most effective, and that's how they should be. A small Nos can keep up with medium & large neusts just fine.


@Alex
I have yet to see an overpowering Hawk that truly annihilates the others.
Like I said, if it's limited to ganking interceptors & t1, that's not really a concern since you can do that already.
An untanked Hawk is a weak Hawk. The Harpy has a bigger tank ffs.


@Darkstar
You've got a pretty misguided and perhaps a bit biased view of the changes.
It doesn't seem like you've read the thread OR been play testing the ships.
AFs can not and will not fill the role of interceptors with these changes.

As for two Rifters killing a Jag. You can still do that.
The fewe Low-Sec players are unhappy because they are stubborn, and/or haven't been testing.


@Deathwing
10% damage would be too strong, 10% hp is all it really needs. The Ishkur is still super tough.


@PinkKnife
It's largely flawed criticism. People seem to be stubborn and/or refuse to actually test the ships.
And in regard to your point, that's my point. They are absolutely awful for closing range, and the role bonus solves that.
They do just fine without propulsion once in tackle range.


@MotherMoon
Warp speed is only effective in large systems where said ships can get up to, and hold, speed.
Most systems aren't really big enough for that, so agility is a far more relevant factor.
Basically, increasing warp speed would be a useless bonus Smile

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

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

Kyle Brutor
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#375 - 2012-01-09 21:52:38 UTC
Instead of giving the assault ships a MWD signature radius reduction, I think they need a speed boost to afterburners to keep them separated from interceptors. Assault frigates are one of the funnest classes of ships in the game for good small gang and solo frigate PvP where afterburners dominate.

Arrow 50% bonus to afterburner speed increase.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#376 - 2012-01-09 22:10:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
Changes I would make. Sorry, quoted original post and hacked it up a bit; but this is the result.



All Assault Ships

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

* Remove Multi-Weapon Configurations. Example: If 2 turrets + 4 launchers; then remove turrets. Hawk for example with 5 highs can fit one turret in addition to launchers; there is no need for this.

Other platforms like BS may find it useful if primarily turret ships; primarily launcher ships, adding one turret is a bit silly though. Assault ships should also be a little more focused than Battleships, I think.

These two have wierd Shield/Armor/Structure:

Retribution

* Added bonus: 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret tracking speed per skill level.
* +1 mid slot
* +15 CPU
* +200 armor hp

Vengeance

* Added bonus: -5% bonus to Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level; Change to -5% bonus to Launcher Rate of Fire per level.
* +1 high slot
* +10 CPU
* Remove Bonus: 5% bonus to Rocket Launcher Damage per level; Replace with Bonus: 5% Bonus to Launcher Damage per level.

Cross-platform bonus combinations are useless. Why should missile platforms suffer penalties not applied to turret platforms?



Harpy

* Added bonus: -5% bonus to shield resistances
* +1 low slot
* +200 shield hp
* +10 CPU
* Remove Bonus: 10% to Small Hybrid Turret Optimal Range per Level; Replace with Bonus 10% to Small Hybrid Turret Falloff per level.

Hawk

* Added bonus: -5% bonus to Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level
* Remove +1 mid slot ; Change to +1 Low Slot
* +10 CPU
* Remove Bonus to Kinetic Missile Damage; Replace with 5% bonus to Launcher Damage per level.



Enyo

* Added bonus: +5% damage changed to 10% bonus to damage (like taranis does)
* +1 mid slot
* +200 armor hp
* +10 CPU

Ishkur

* Added bonus: 10% bonus to drone hitpoints per level
* +1 low slot



Jaguar

* Added bonus: 7.5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Tracking per level
* Remove +1 low slot; Change to +1 Mid Slot - Primarily shield/Tackle; Not Active tank. Same reason as Wolf.
* +5 Powergrid

Wolf

* Added bonus: 7.5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Tracking per level
* Remove +1 low slot; Change to +1 Medium Slot -Terrible PvP fitting with 2 Mids
* +200 armor hp
* +10 CPU
* +10 Powergrid



Thoughts?
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#377 - 2012-01-09 22:26:41 UTC
@Kyle
It's been beaten to death already, and it's generally unanimous that AB bonuses are a **** idea.

@Mars
Making the Vengeance able to fit missile launchers as well isn't a terrible idea.

I disagree with rest of your suggestions though, and here is why:
The optimal bonus is incredible on the Harpy and fits with the rest of the Caldari line.
7km optimal with neutrons & null? Nothing wrong with that.

Changing the Hawk to work with any rocket type isn' t really worth it.
It would too easily trump it's racial enemies (Gallente). The Kinetic bonus isn't awful and keeps the ship from being overpowering.

You're adding an extra slot for the Jaguar which is not needed. The extra low is a good change, the ship simply needs a bit more base shields and fitting. If that gets done it will be fine.

You're adding an extra slot for the Wolf which is not needed. Giving it an extra mid makes it too similar to the Jaguar, and there would be no reason to fly the Jag over the Wolf. There is nothing wrong with 2 mids for pvp, it's still very very effective especially against larger targets.

And lastly removing the extra turrets/missile hardpoints isn't necessary. Even if people aren't using on a regular basis, they add some potential variety to the ships. Nobody is forcing you to run 4 rockets on the Veng and Hawk. In fact, you can achieve higher damage output if you run 3 rockets and 2 turrets. The same applies for the other ships and their optional rocket launchers. That slot can be missile deterrent (defenders) or an extra 20dps if you so choose.
Basically, you aren't gaining anything by removing them, you're just limiting.

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

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

Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#378 - 2012-01-09 23:47:35 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
@Kyle
It's been beaten to death already, and it's generally unanimous that AB bonuses are a **** idea.

@Mars
Making the Vengeance able to fit missile launchers as well isn't a terrible idea.

I disagree with rest of your suggestions though, and here is why:
The optimal bonus is incredible on the Harpy and fits with the rest of the Caldari line.
7km optimal with neutrons & null? Nothing wrong with that.

Changing the Hawk to work with any rocket type isn' t really worth it.
It would too easily trump it's racial enemies (Gallente). The Kinetic bonus isn't awful and keeps the ship from being overpowering.

You're adding an extra slot for the Jaguar which is not needed. The extra low is a good change, the ship simply needs a bit more base shields and fitting. If that gets done it will be fine.

You're adding an extra slot for the Wolf which is not needed. Giving it an extra mid makes it too similar to the Jaguar, and there would be no reason to fly the Jag over the Wolf. There is nothing wrong with 2 mids for pvp, it's still very very effective especially against larger targets.

And lastly removing the extra turrets/missile hardpoints isn't necessary. Even if people aren't using on a regular basis, they add some potential variety to the ships. Nobody is forcing you to run 4 rockets on the Veng and Hawk. In fact, you can achieve higher damage output if you run 3 rockets and 2 turrets. The same applies for the other ships and their optional rocket launchers. That slot can be missile deterrent (defenders) or an extra 20dps if you so choose.
Basically, you aren't gaining anything by removing them, you're just limiting.


Blasters have lower Optimal than Fall-off. Currently, that means that without additional modules to boost it, and using Level 5 skills; you get 2.2 km with Tech II Light Neutrons. I wouldn't consider that within range unless the target was sitting still and you were bumping him.

I don't really care about Tech II ammo results. That is not really relevent to the whole picture; but a specific penalized circumstance.

Allowing Caldari to move to a spread of Missile and Rocket damage on this and other platforms can only benefit them. Currently, Kinetic bonuses handicap Caldari missile boats. I also reduced the bonus from 10% to 5% per level to account for this change.

You may be referring to this already, if ambiguously; but I am replacing the Low slot changes with mid slot changes. They are not extra.

With these changes:

Jag: 4 High / 5 Mid / 3 Low

Wolf: 5 High / 3 Mid/ 4 Low

Given the uses of these ships, adding low slots would only give them a minor boost without much or any change in versatility.

The Jag needs at least 4 Mids to fit a decent shield tank and MWD; 5 gives it the ability to fit tackle, or even reduce it's shields a little and fit point.

The Wolf already has decent Lows for what is almost always an armor tank, and lacks decent Mids. 1 Point and 1 Web, or 1 Point and 1 MWD is not much in the way of versatility. It's already getting +200 armor too; so it really doesn't need the extra low as well.

I disagree with your argument against these changes obviously. It's not that it isn't functional the other way around; but that doesn't make it balanced or better.

From the day I joined EVE the most common piece of advice I recieved, was to avoid using turrets and launchers, Blasters with railguns, or 200mm AC's with 150mm ACs. It's very common advice for a reason: These weapons have different ranges and are affected differently by target velocity, transversal, and other factors.

The only use I ever saw, was just to increase dps a little. Given every ship out there has bonuses applied to only one, (Turrets or Launchers); the additional dps is marginal at best in most cases. Most recommend fitting something like a Neut or NOS, or Tractor there instead.

So, I say remove them; the turret ships have comparable DPS across the board, without them; not counting drones. The Ishkur gets something like 160% of average DPS with it's drones out.

Launcher AFs on the other hand; suffer a loss of about 50% DPS compared to other AFs; and no bonuses, extra turret, or additional changes to AFs can help that. The problem is with the launchers and ammunition. High Volley and Low DPS.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Jaigar
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#379 - 2012-01-10 00:28:49 UTC
3 mids on a Wolf would leave you with a MSE, AB, and scram, and then you have your lows for nanos, gyros, TEs, etc.. You cannot have 3 mids on a Wolf or else you will start to see shield tanks because Matari resists lean towards this.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#380 - 2012-01-10 00:53:35 UTC
Mars, you really don't have any idea of what you're talking about Ugh

5 mids on a Jaguar are an awful idea, as unlike the Hawk ,there is no reason to have 5 mids.
It would provide far too much utility, far more than what is now possible with 4 lows and 4 mids.
The Wolf with 5 lows is fantastic, and anyone who has been testing the thing will attest to that.
3 mids would step into the Jaguars domain and make the Jag useless.
As I already said, the Jag needs more fitting and some more base shields. Any issues it is having right now would be solved by that simple change.

As for your comment on blasters, I have no idea where to start.
For one, you can't discount T2 ammo. Gallente AFs get a bonus to damage, range, & tracking and 3 mids, and Caldari get a bonus to big bonus to range and an additional one to tracking. Using Null is not only highly recommended, but it's also extremely popular with the Null changes. Neutrons+Null on AFs have incredible range, and you're simply ignoring that huge factor to benefit your argument.

Laucher AFs are some of the strongest assault frigates. Vengeances & Hawks are extremely strong with their damage output.
If you're having difficulty fielding them (assuming you're even testing them), it's player error not the ships.

And in regard to the mixed slots, putting a rocket launcher on an Enyo is not anything remotely like mixing blasters with railguns.
It's hard to believe someone can be so obtuse. You aren't benefiting anyone by removing those mixed hardpoints, you're simply removing some variation from the game Roll

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

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