These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#841 - 2012-01-16 19:23:54 UTC
/me wonders on how HAC's would do with afterburner speed bonuses.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#842 - 2012-01-16 19:29:18 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
@X
T2 (by CCPs definition) are supposed to be better than Navy, and equal to Pirate.
3 of the 5 Pirate frigs could use a buff (Cruor, Worm, Succubus).

Empire Faction Frigates (by CCPs definition) are supposed to be a midpoint between T2 interceptors and T2 assault frigates. T2 is not supposed to be better, just different. T2 are supposed to be more specialized, Empire Faction are supposed to be more versatile.

The slot layout buff + MWD signature reduction eats into Empire faction frigate space by quite a bit by increasing AF versatility - which is what Empire Faction frigates are supposed to have.
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#843 - 2012-01-16 19:34:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsubutai
X Gallentius wrote:
Empire Faction Frigates (by CCPs definition) are supposed to be a midpoint between T2 interceptors and T2 assault frigates. T2 is not supposed to be better, just different.

I think you're misreading the devblog - it says that the intention was for navy faction frigates to be intermediate between T1 and t2 in capability and to have some of the qualities of both inties and AFs. The blog is here: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=705

Quote:
Navy ships ... should have attributes located between tech 1 and tech 2 ... the goal was to revamp them into a relatively cheap mix of interceptor and assault frigates

Pirate ships ... should either be on par with Tech 2 ships of the same class or even slightly above them.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#844 - 2012-01-16 19:41:50 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Edit: Lol on edits.. :)

Tsubutai wrote:
edit: nvm, i misremembered

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=1782

We're both off a bit.

Enhanced for military duties, navy ships are improved combat platforms over their base tech 1 hull versions; they are meant to keep the same role (with some exceptions) than their regular versions when they have any, and only require their base race spaceship command skill set to be flown. Due to their acquisition method and general availability, we determined they should have attributes located between tech 1 and tech 2, mainly designed to be versatile in the functions they can accomplish. Which led us to the following:



1. Navy frigates: the goal was to revamp them into a relatively cheap mix of interceptor and assault frigates, with neither the speed of the former or the firepower of the latter.

Attributes T1 and T2, designed to be versatile, mix of Inties and AFs.
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#845 - 2012-01-16 19:45:00 UTC
heh, nerds in edit war, read all about it.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#846 - 2012-01-16 19:55:02 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
Morgan North wrote:
/me wonders on how HAC's would do with afterburner speed bonuses.



I'm a big fan of after burning (dual prop) cruisers now. They're pretty powerful. Thing is though. They have a hard time tracking other after-burning cruisers lol. They would be very dangerous if CCP went that way. Against Battleships, battle-cruisers and frigates.


Test out a fewdual prop hacs against a shield -hurricane in scram range and you will see.



-proxyyyy
Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#847 - 2012-01-16 20:01:52 UTC
Then maybe they could get a tracking bonus if they fitted a afterburner? ;) Instead of a speed bonus and whatnot. :)
Kalaratiri
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#848 - 2012-01-16 20:03:00 UTC
Norris Packard wrote:

- Wolf; 5H/2M/5L Artillery beast needs the Optimal bonus not falloff.


I liked your post, up to this point. Wolf only works because of it's falloff. The artillery wolf does not work. How many people have you honestly seen fit artillery on a wolf? You get more artillery rifters than wolves.

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
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#849 - 2012-01-16 20:19:13 UTC
Kalaratiri wrote:
Norris Packard wrote:

- Wolf; 5H/2M/5L Artillery beast needs the Optimal bonus not falloff.


I liked your post, up to this point. Wolf only works because of it's falloff. The artillery wolf does not work. How many people have you honestly seen fit artillery on a wolf? You get more artillery rifters than wolves.


I dont follow you here - so the problem with suggesting an Optimal bonus replacement on the Wolf is that it already has a falloff bonus?

You don't see arty on Wolves because of the bonus. If Wolves had their bonus replaced, as Norris suggested, they WOULD be artillery beasts.

Maybe i misunderstood you, but it seems you're saying that you shouldn't give an optimal bonus to a ship that isn't fitting artillery BECAUSE it lacks the bonus to begin with. Anyone here see the circular logic?

I can understand conceptually having one be autocannon fit, and one artillery for the two minnie ships, but to suggest that the bonuses can't be swapped cause they already are swapped is kind of confusing.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Norris Packard
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#850 - 2012-01-16 20:31:57 UTC
Kalaratiri wrote:
Norris Packard wrote:

- Wolf; 5H/2M/5L Artillery beast needs the Optimal bonus not falloff.


I liked your post, up to this point. Wolf only works because of it's falloff. The artillery wolf does not work. How many people have you honestly seen fit artillery on a wolf? You get more artillery rifters than wolves.


Honestly most the Wolfs I have run into were Arty not AC fits and that might just be a local thing. I would always AC fit mine for the falloff bonus but thought that Arty was more common with them and having them be mini-Muninns seems like it would be cool.

Looking at my corp killboards there seems to be a few more AC fits than Arty fits but they are close. A few 250mm Arty fits.
Kalaratiri
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#851 - 2012-01-16 20:43:44 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Kalaratiri wrote:
Norris Packard wrote:

- Wolf; 5H/2M/5L Artillery beast needs the Optimal bonus not falloff.


I liked your post, up to this point. Wolf only works because of it's falloff. The artillery wolf does not work. How many people have you honestly seen fit artillery on a wolf? You get more artillery rifters than wolves.


I dont follow you here - so the problem with suggesting an Optimal bonus replacement on the Wolf is that it already has a falloff bonus?

You don't see arty on Wolves because of the bonus. If Wolves had their bonus replaced, as Norris suggested, they WOULD be artillery beasts.

Maybe i misunderstood you, but it seems you're saying that you shouldn't give an optimal bonus to a ship that isn't fitting artillery BECAUSE it lacks the bonus to begin with. Anyone here see the circular logic?

I can understand conceptually having one be autocannon fit, and one artillery for the two minnie ships, but to suggest that the bonuses can't be swapped cause they already are swapped is kind of confusing.


The way I see the ships, is that the wolf is a close range, armor tanking brawler. It uses autocannons and either a buffer or active tank. The Jaguar is a longer ranged, kiting, artillery ship, which normally fits a buffer tank (although does very well with some active setups). The Jaguar has a slot for a web, which allows it to hold slightly faster targets down, whereas the wolf cannot fit a web. It therefore needs it's falloff bonus to be able to reach out far enough to deal damage when webbed.

I see your point that swapping the bonuses could allow the wolf to be a decent artillery ship, but I think the slot distribution would need to be re-thought if that was the case. Artillery tend to be powergrid hungry, not a good thing for an armor tanking ship. The wolf is also relatively slow, which is again not a good thing for an kiting arty ship.

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
Norris Packard
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#852 - 2012-01-16 20:50:40 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Kalaratiri wrote:
Norris Packard wrote:

- Wolf; 5H/2M/5L Artillery beast needs the Optimal bonus not falloff.


I liked your post, up to this point. Wolf only works because of it's falloff. The artillery wolf does not work. How many people have you honestly seen fit artillery on a wolf? You get more artillery rifters than wolves.


I dont follow you here - so the problem with suggesting an Optimal bonus replacement on the Wolf is that it already has a falloff bonus?

You don't see arty on Wolves because of the bonus. If Wolves had their bonus replaced, as Norris suggested, they WOULD be artillery beasts.

Maybe i misunderstood you, but it seems you're saying that you shouldn't give an optimal bonus to a ship that isn't fitting artillery BECAUSE it lacks the bonus to begin with. Anyone here see the circular logic?

I can understand conceptually having one be autocannon fit, and one artillery for the two minnie ships, but to suggest that the bonuses can't be swapped cause they already are swapped is kind of confusing.


Also if you look at the other ships styled by the tech 2 companies that switch would make so much more sense than having Thunkker have the Arty bonused AF (Jaguar) and the AC bonused HAC (Vagabond). Jaguar is so much like a mini Vagabond already the bonus swap would make sense and be very fitting.
Kalaratiri
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#853 - 2012-01-16 20:56:03 UTC
Norris Packard wrote:
Kalaratiri wrote:
Norris Packard wrote:

- Wolf; 5H/2M/5L Artillery beast needs the Optimal bonus not falloff.


I liked your post, up to this point. Wolf only works because of it's falloff. The artillery wolf does not work. How many people have you honestly seen fit artillery on a wolf? You get more artillery rifters than wolves.


Honestly most the Wolfs I have run into were Arty not AC fits and that might just be a local thing. I would always AC fit mine for the falloff bonus but thought that Arty was more common with them and having them be mini-Muninns seems like it would be cool.

Looking at my corp killboards there seems to be a few more AC fits than Arty fits but they are close. A few 250mm Arty fits.


That must be a local thing, as I've never seen an artillery wolf in over a year of pvp'ing in minmatar low sec. The mini-muninn is a nice idea, but not one that currently works that well (from my quick attempt on pyfa).

I can up with this, which is a bit of a take on the vaga wolf due to cpu and powergrid issues with everything else I tried:

[Wolf, Mini-Muninn]

[Empty High slot]
250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion S
250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion S
250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion S
250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion S

Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I

Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Small Armor Repairer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II

Small Projectile Collision Accelerator I
Small Projectile Metastasis Adjuster I

I'm not honestly that impressed. 5.5k ehp, 2.5km/s, 830 on the volley and 136 dps. Requires a 2% pg implant. An autocannon wolf would tear it apart.

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
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#854 - 2012-01-16 20:57:35 UTC
The wolf and jag would need their CPU values swapped if the wolf was made an arty boat.
Norris Packard
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#855 - 2012-01-16 21:02:06 UTC
Kalaratiri wrote:
Norris Packard wrote:
Kalaratiri wrote:
Norris Packard wrote:

- Wolf; 5H/2M/5L Artillery beast needs the Optimal bonus not falloff.


I liked your post, up to this point. Wolf only works because of it's falloff. The artillery wolf does not work. How many people have you honestly seen fit artillery on a wolf? You get more artillery rifters than wolves.


Honestly most the Wolfs I have run into were Arty not AC fits and that might just be a local thing. I would always AC fit mine for the falloff bonus but thought that Arty was more common with them and having them be mini-Muninns seems like it would be cool.

Looking at my corp killboards there seems to be a few more AC fits than Arty fits but they are close. A few 250mm Arty fits.


That must be a local thing, as I've never seen an artillery wolf in over a year of pvp'ing in minmatar low sec. The mini-muninn is a nice idea, but not one that currently works that well (from my quick attempt on pyfa).

I can up with this, which is a bit of a take on the vaga wolf due to cpu and powergrid issues with everything else I tried:

[Wolf, Mini-Muninn]

[Empty High slot]
250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion S
250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion S
250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion S
250mm Light Artillery Cannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion S

Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
J5 Prototype Warp Disruptor I

Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Small Armor Repairer II
Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Enhancer II

Small Projectile Collision Accelerator I
Small Projectile Metastasis Adjuster I

I'm not honestly that impressed. 5.5k ehp, 2.5km/s, 830 on the volley and 136 dps. Requires a 2% pg implant. An autocannon wolf would tear it apart.


Going this route they should make the grid and cpu able to support 280mm, Muninns can sport 720mms with Prop and no fitting mod think the Wolf should be able to do the same at its level.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#856 - 2012-01-16 21:03:26 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
The wolf and jag would need their CPU values swapped if the wolf was made an arty boat.



Fair enough, all good points. I think it was just the way they worded it that had me confused.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Khrage
#857 - 2012-01-16 21:06:14 UTC
Captain Nares wrote:
New AF's: a bit OP and still useless Smile

Sure FW guys will use them. But they already use them now.

Sure this is an improvement. But not a successs Ugh



you my friend, obviously have no idea what you're talking about. overpowered and still useless? something can't be overpowered an useless at the same time buddy. if anything this combo would actually be called balancing, and that is exactly what this buff is doing.
Norris Packard
Horde Vanguard.
Pandemic Horde
#858 - 2012-01-16 21:13:25 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
The wolf and jag would need their CPU values swapped if the wolf was made an arty boat.


I don't think swapping is the right idea, my Jaguar is super tight on CPU as is. Bringing up the Wolfs CPU would need to be independently dealt with.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#859 - 2012-01-16 21:33:29 UTC
The Wolf & Jag have always been backwards as far as LOL-RP goes.
The Wolf should be a mini-Muninn and the Jag should be a mini-Vaga, and it's been suggested many times over the years. I'm not sure why CCP hasn't gone and done this already, but it may have something do with AF level balance.

And in regard to AFs compared to Navy/Pirate.
Navy can do everything AFs can do, but with much weaker tanks (like T1 ships) and more speed (like Interceptors). I think they are fine. The Pirate ships are a different story, and CCP hasn't stated which T2 they are supposed to be on par or supersede. The Dramiel & Daredevil are the obvious two that excel and remain threats to some of the AFs, but the other 3 are a bit weaker by comparison. The Cruor has anemic cap & tank with poor damage, and the Worm has low damage & speed with a good tank, while the Succubus is just short of greatness with a relatively weak tank. Boost those 3 and I don't think there will be a problem anymore.

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#860 - 2012-01-16 21:56:37 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
The Wolf & Jag have always been backwards as far as LOL-RP goes.
The Wolf should be a mini-Muninn and the Jag should be a mini-Vaga, and it's been suggested many times over the years. I'm not sure why CCP hasn't gone and done this already, but it may have something do with AF level balance.




Than I say stick to the original concept. CCP should be taking their time with these tweaks, so they dont rush out a set of balances just to appease all that have demanded AF balancing, if it means leaving them further away from the original design intent. Why

I'm all for iterations, but not at the speed that they'll cause even further problems down the road.

CCP, pay heed - if you're going to be sensitive to player feedback, than make sure these concerns are addressed - I see A LOT of hesitancy and WTF?? reactions in this thread - thats a sign to take another few weeks and come up with some alternatives and explore a bit more - not to just plow ahead and hope for the best.

Hasty expansions got us here to begin with, hasty fixes will get us no farther ahead. I get nervous when i see imminent changes upon us and a community still providing stern warnings to re-evaluate, and no further word is being heard from CCP as to whether they've taken the feedback into consideration or are moving ahead regardless...

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary