These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#1001 - 2012-01-21 19:07:30 UTC
Quote:
It's not so much that anything will be obsolete, it's that we have here an entire ship class that the playerbase has wanted changed for years, and we have unlimited possibilities for improving it in new and creative ways. Instead we get a bonus that already exists on very similar ships.

Huh, looks like I need to learn to read, because I could swear the OP also stated additions of slots, bonuses, fitting room and HP on top of that role bonus.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#1002 - 2012-01-21 19:30:37 UTC
You can yell until you're blue - CCP Tallest I not a 'forum' person. He does a great job but if you get two posts from him in a thread you should consider yourself lucky.
Todd Jaeger
Mayhem and Destruction
#1003 - 2012-01-21 21:16:21 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Hello


please ccp give coercer one middle slot.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1004 - 2012-01-21 21:32:15 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Quote:
...people who know absolutely nothing...

Huh? So spending 80%+ of the last 3+ years in frigates/destroyers shooting all size ships is not enough to be considered knowledgeable on the topic frigates/destroyers and their place in the hierarchy? .

When you're making the claims that keep coming out, then no, it doesn't matter how much time you spend in the ships. I have an friend that's spent his whole eve-life in T1 frigates, does that make it the most knowledgeable? No.

I'm sorry, was there some fact that you wanted to bring to the table? I'm not ignoring anything, it's just that so far there are no actual disconcerting tidbits that have been brought up. People saying "AFs are replacing _______" isn't disconcerting when they're actually wrong.


Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Quote:
...So far nothing is broken.

Wasn't it you who argued that it didn't matter if something was broken now since the plan is to rebalance almost everything at some point anyway? Didn't you state that they are not broken because it is possible to counter the over-buffed AFs with some ships? So your claim hinges on light combat in Eve surviving X number of years in a broken state and/or everyone not in an AF resort to specialized fits to stay competitive .. I would seriously love to hear what you consider broken .. hahahahahaha.

Cruisers > AFs
Destroyers == AFs

I'm sorry, if you can't grasp that then you've got other issues.
Broken would mean that AFs obsolete other ships, which they don't.
Afterburner bonused AFs were broken. Dramiels were broken. ECM is still broken.

And as for the DualProp stuff:
DP anything is pretty tankless and gets shredded by Destroyers. Thanks for playtesting before you smack Roll

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1005 - 2012-01-21 21:32:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
Ivan En'Vec wrote:
Am I understanding it right that you're in charge of the AF changes - or at least the feedback? At a time when our faith in CCP is still about rock bottom, you guys give us a goonswarm CSM alternate that likes to offhandedly dismiss anything that he doesn't agree with? There's some valid arguments in this thread that should be given serious consideration, not a blanket denial because we peons of EVE know absolutely nothing.

It's not so much that anything will be obsolete, it's that we have here an entire ship class that the playerbase has wanted changed for years, and we have unlimited possibilities for improving it in new and creative ways. Instead we get a bonus that already exists on very similar ships.

I'm arguably the only person on the CSM who knows anything about frigate combat, and I have a great dislike for misinformation (something this thread is great for producing). Thanks for just casting me aside as another Goon, and not actually looking into some character history or anything. I joined the GSF around Christmas, and probably won't be sticking around. If all it takes is someones corp to make you ignore facts, then you have other issues.

There were valid arguments. They have been dismissed after extensive playtesting.
5mid Hawk being op? It was a huge concern to me. It was looked into and it's actually fine.
Cruisers & BCs being wiped out by AFs? Big concern, but also thrown out when people actually realized that it's quite hard to take on cruisers and even harder to try against a BC.

All of the concerns and "validations" look good on paper, but don't actually come through in practice.
5mid hawk looks ********, but it's really really easily dealt with.
AFs wiping away cruisers looks threatening, but then you realize that Cruisers have defenses that AFs can't match.
AFs obsoleting Destroyers looks like a big deal until you realize how easy it is to ruin an AFs day with a Destroyer.

It's not so much that a lot of people know nothing, it's has more to do with the fact that what they know isn't enough.
You can't argue a point and then completely ignore what makes the argument false.

And yes, I can understand where you're coming from, and how people wanted something new and creative.
Trouble is introducing a brand new system when many of the current mechanics and systems in game can't nurture.
You can do a lot of things with specific classes, but in the end it would involve dumping hundreds of man-hours into rebalancing the whole game. And at that scale, balancing isn't just ships. In the end, it ends up being better to make a class a little more versatile than tweaking a ton of things associated. Progress is king, and rebalancing everything isn't really progress, it's more standing still. Ships that need tweaking get adjusted to fit in with the rest, and not by simply adding something spiffy and creative. And before someone says that's what the Role Bonus had done, it would have been just as easy to do it another way, rendering that argument invalid.

At any rate, if they fail horribly they can always be changed again.
Fun fact: The Vengeance used to be a laser boat and was then changed to a completely different (and at the time. much weaker) weapon system. Change happens

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
I'thari
#1006 - 2012-01-21 21:54:02 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
At any rate, if they fail horribly they can always be changed again.

No one argues that. But when it takes YEARS to realize you were wrong, change doesn't happen fast enough...

Disclaimer:

Every single character used in this post is a work of fiction. Any similarities with real-world alphabet, or - god forbid - language is purely unintnetional!
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1007 - 2012-01-21 21:56:14 UTC
I'thari wrote:
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
At any rate, if they fail horribly they can always be changed again.

No one argues that. But when it takes YEARS to realize you were wrong, change doesn't happen fast enough...

If they end up being horribly game breaking and ruin the game for everyone, I'll just throw them on my platform for this year P
PROM4CSM7

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#1008 - 2012-01-22 00:12:04 UTC
Has the fit that obsoletes interceptors while still keeping AF advantages been posted yet?
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1009 - 2012-01-22 00:13:50 UTC
Nope, still waiting.

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#1010 - 2012-01-22 00:18:59 UTC
What a surprise.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#1011 - 2012-01-22 02:13:11 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
m0cking bird wrote:
You're p dumb. What are you on about? Do you even know? Guess someone who's ******** wouldn't. You're so deluded it's unbelievable. The first question I would ask someone if I'm not aware of what they're referencing. Would be. What set-ups are you using? ****** brought up active defence set-ups. Those were never mentioned in my post @ all. There were multiple uses of the word afterburner and situations in which micro-warp drives are used. To easy, for a player to just go back in this thread and see @tleast some of the set-ups I quickly posted and have used. Do you have a learning disability? Are you incapable of basic comprehension? I made one serious none plain written post and it seems you're not able to understand that. Maybe you should go back to using crayons and crazy glue.

With these changes assault frigate:

-You're able to field significant buffer tanks. Whether shield or armour hit-points. FACT

-Assault frigates are able to mitigate significant damage actively (armour or shield). FACT

-The role bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty. Is equivalent to Interceptor skill @ 4. FACT

-@ 3,000m/sec and above (with or without heat). Assault frigates absorb 10 - 35% more damage (Hurricane) than a Interceptor would. With 200% more effective hit-points. When inducing transversal.

With these changes. How assault frigate interact with other frigates and other classes in are current environment is difficult to foresee. However, if warp scambler did not disable micro-warp drives. What would be the difference between 50% bonus to afterburner velocity and 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty. Assault frigates with 40m Signature radius. Going @ 1,500m/sec or a 120m Signature radius assault frigate, with a velocity of 2,200m/sec. Answer = warp scrambler turning off a micro-warp drive and 49% more damage taken (under-perfect conditions) from a general shield-Hurricane. In perfect condition (heh!). Around the same ability Interceptors have to mitigate damage now. With Interceptor Skill Bonus: 15% reduction in micro-warp drive signature radius penalty per level. Even if a assault frigate where taking 50% more damage. Most are able to field 200% more effective hit-points of Interceptors @ warp disruptor range (24-28km). Which is the Operation range of most ships.

Just screwing around on SISI with these. They're P OP. Once optimal set-ups have been settled on by the player base. There will most likely be 3 options: Damage/glass cannon, hit-point stacking or active defence. Some ships like the Harpy and Retribution have the option to kite (skirmish). Some will have the ability to dictate range within warp scrambler range (Jaguar, Hawk, Harpy (x2 stasis webifier)). I suppose you could also set-up these ships up like Interceptors (one or 2 overdrive injectors) and lose some damage and defence, but still be able to school all Interceptors.


-proxyyyy



Just going to focus on the most viable Interceptors (fleet and combat) versus assault frigate counterparts. I'm sure many pilots are aware of ships being set-up for use within a fleet. With that said. Take a look @ a FLEET-Jaguar compared to a Stiletto. Now, a Enyo replacing a Taranis was talked about from day one (alot). So, below is not news. You're able to make similar comparisons between a Crusader and Retribution. The Jaguar and Harpy will be most viable in FLEET ENGAGEMENTS. However, alot of assault frigates can be used. Provided 3 mid slots. Where you would put a single medium shield extender and devote low slots to damage and velocity increasing modules. I'm not going to link set-ups. Go on the Test server and figure the rest out yourselves. Few peeps I've been corresponding with on this topic put this all together before I did. Always nice to have bros and no can know everything. I tend to listen to others input or find other with defering opinions, experiences and ask questions...

Ishkur: 2,900m/sec, 7000 effective hitpoints, 200 damage per second (No drones), 140 signature radius, 6.2 second alignment (micro-warp drive) = Dual propulsion or single.
Enyo: 3,000m/sec, 8000 (200 armour hitpoints have been removed?) effective hitpoints, 300 damage per second (No drones), 6 second alignment, 130 signature radius (micro-warp drive) = Dual propulsion or single
Taranis: 3,700m/sec, 3900 effective hitpoints, 250 damage per second (No drones), 4.5 second alignment, 80 signature radius (Interceptor skill @ 5) = Dual propulsion or single.

Ares: Who cares?

Claw: 3,500m/sec, 6000 effective hitpoints, 140 damage per second, 70 signature radius (micro-warp drive), 5.7 second alignment
Wolf: 3,000m/sec, 11000 effective hitpoints, 230 damage per second, 115 signature radius (micro-warp drive), 6.7 second alignment

Stiletto: 3,500m/sec, 6000 effective hitpoints, 65 damage per second, 70 signature radius (micro-warp drive), 5.7 second alignment
Jaguar: 3,400m/sec, 14000 effective hitpoints, 155 damage per second, 155 signature radius (micro-warp drive), 5.5 second alignment

1 hour left until this character is deleted = (


-proxyyyy
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1012 - 2012-01-22 03:39:41 UTC
So let me get this straight;
You've remove their tanks and put at least 2 speed mods on each ship, and are claiming that that's enough to obsolete Interceptors? Lol

So these new super frigs are still pretty good against their intended targets, right? Oh wait a second, no.. they're awful.
So these new super frigs would still be able to fight other AFs if they needed to, right? Wait, nope.. they can't.
Okay okay, so they've gotta be faster than interceptors..? Nope.
Fine, so they've gotta have more tackle range then at least, right? Damn, nope.
Can they at least permanently mwd and maintain a long point? Yep.. wait, nope. Still horrible.
But at least they'll be super hard to kill with Destroyers at least, right? ****, nope. Even easier.

A valiant attempt, but still a failure.

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#1013 - 2012-01-22 04:21:53 UTC
AF are done then. I hope EAS are next.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#1014 - 2012-01-22 08:23:00 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
..But at least they'll be super hard to kill with Destroyers at least, right? ****, nope. Even easier..

Still trying to peddle that lie?

Come visit us in the FW monkey cage .. the only case where a current AF can be killed by destroyers is if its blobbed and/or alpha'd, we kill dessies with T1 frigs for Goddess sake .. tried saying it too many times to count but you are at least consistent in your efforts to automatically discard arguments against your over-buff.

By the way, are interceptors even used in any significant numbers in the mega-blobs any more, seems to me that dictors have all but taken over all tackling duties ..

Either way, looking forward to the over-buff spreading to all other ships now that AFs get placed somewhere between cruisers and BCs .. we are getting tiericide this summer right or will we have to live with these abnormal's for a full year or more?
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1015 - 2012-01-22 09:06:32 UTC
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Either way, looking forward to the over-buff spreading to all other ships now that AFs get placed somewhere between cruisers and BCs


That's just hysteria.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#1016 - 2012-01-22 10:00:39 UTC
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
Has the fit that obsoletes interceptors while still keeping AF advantages been posted yet?


Actually, it looks like the Jag can come pretty close (though I doubt the others can)


[Jaguar, Inty]

150mm Light AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma S
150mm Light AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma S
150mm Light AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma S
[Empty High slot]

Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters
Warp Disruptor II
Medium Shield Extender II
Small Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 200

Damage Control II
Overdrive Injector System II
Overdrive Injector System II
Overdrive Injector System II

Small Core Defence Field Extender I
Small Core Defence Field Extender I

10.5K EHP, 3.6K m/s, comparable scan res (though not quite as good, and no sensor booster)...and a decent, though bad for an inty, align time of 4 seconds.

It will still have a much larger sig than an inty however, though I'd bet the tracking would make up for it.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1017 - 2012-01-22 10:16:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
Close by no cigar.
You've removed the AFs ability to compete as it would be obliterated by support (interceptors, frigates, destroyers), nevermind it even dreaming of going against a Cruiser or other AF. You'd may as well use any faction frigate instead.

Combat interceptors still do the job better, despite having a little more than half that tank.
Faster, more agile, better cap, more damage, no sacrifices.

Heck, even something as simple as a Rocket crow would (literally) run circles around that.

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1018 - 2012-01-22 10:28:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
Has the fit that obsoletes interceptors while still keeping AF advantages been posted yet?


Actually, it looks like the Jag can come pretty close (though I doubt the others can)


I wouldn't call that pretty close as there are three crucial differences:

A speed fit ceptor can outrun drones, the Jaguar can't (your fit has 5.8 align time btw which eats even more into the max orbiting speed).
A ceptor is very hard to hit for cruiser sized guns while in orbit (usually unhittable), the Jaguar still takes damage. Yes I simulated this in EFT with the new sig radius values using halos and a mindlink.
A (tackler) ceptor can orbit out of heavy neut range while holding a point.
Tomytronic
Perkone
Caldari State
#1019 - 2012-01-22 13:21:27 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
I joined the GSF around Christmas, and probably won't be sticking around.

Sad

We'll miss you.
Rhadit
Habemus
#1020 - 2012-01-22 13:28:52 UTC
coercer shuold get 2 mids. . ...a.a..a.a..


Prom is always right.