These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Roles of Caldari ships after the ship tier change
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Denuo Secus
#1 - 2012-03-12 10:49:05 UTC
Hi,

I know it's a bit crystal ball arguing, but assuming....

- bonuses of Caldari missile and turret ships remain as they are
- except the Drake loses it's resistance bonus in exchange for more offensive power
- the lower tiers are getting boosted

...we would have tanky turret ships and gank missile ships (simplified). Let's exclude the other roles like ewar and logistic here.

In case this comes true, what could be the main roles for said ships? I could imagine the turret line is great for brawling and for sniping. Brawling because of the tank bonus and sniping (obviously) because of the range bonus and instant damage.

The new missile line would make good kiters then I guess. Missiles offer damage projection + a lot of med slots are nice for range control. I don't think they are good at brawling without tank bonus since it's necessary to sacrifice med slots for more takle (web+scram), which isn't needed when kiting (long point only). Without resistance this could become tricky close range.

What do you think?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#2 - 2012-03-12 11:47:03 UTC
I think fundamental changes to ships will be limited or non-existent. By that I mean total reworkings of ships or their bonuses. I think we're much more likely to see low-tier ships given extra slots and fittings. As such, in general, the ships would retain their current "roles", but they'd be more usable in them. E.g., a Caracal might be able HMLs and some sort of tank. Of course, with sufficient extra PG it could switch to HAMs, MWD and LSE, allowing it to fulfil a 20-km kiting/brawler role, which would be sufficiently different to classify it as a change in role from its pure support role of today, serving to disprove my opening statement... erm...

It wouldn't surprise me, however, to see the Rokh switch the shield resist bonus to a hybrid damage one. The t3 BCs have shown that the Naga needed both damage and range to be useful, and although the shield resist bonus is powerful and useful, the sniper Rokh struggled to compete with the Apoc because of the lack of damage, despite the much greater EHP. Of course, on-grid probing and warping would have to be fixed to make any of this worthwhile anyway.

I don't think that the shield resist bonus is particularly meaningful as an indicator of a ship's role, at least on BCs and BS. As soon as you get to the level of battlecruisers, ships have enough slots to be able to work around limitations posed by such a bonus. For example, I expect the future ganky Drake to be about as effective as a scram-range HAM brawler and kiting HM spammer - if not more so on both counts - than the current tanky Drake.

I've read this post again and it's almost incoherent. Oh well. /me hits "post" anyway.
Denuo Secus
#3 - 2012-03-12 14:19:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Denuo Secus
Gypsio III wrote:
...I don't think that the shield resist bonus is particularly meaningful as an indicator of a ship's role, at least on BCs and BS. As soon as you get to the level of battlecruisers, ships have enough slots to be able to work around limitations posed by such a bonus. For example, I expect the future ganky Drake to be about as effective as a scram-range HAM brawler and kiting HM spammer - if not more so on both counts - than the current tanky Drake...


True. It gets complicated on cruiser hulls and below. Recently I tried to build a decent brawling Moa. Event with it's resist bonus it struggles to get the EHP of a plated Vexor or Rupture after fitting MWD, web and scram. But in exchange it has agility and plenty low slots left to deal a good amount of damage...so I've no problems here. I just think without the resist bonus brawling would be very hard with 4 med slots only.

Bigger hulls allow more flexibility. So a Rokh with damage bonus instead of resists would be interesting. In a sniping role tank isn't that important (I think). In brawling mode...I'm not sure. Problem with Caldari is they have one turret BS only. Amarr for instance have the Abaddon for tank+gank and the Apoc for range+gank. Caldari must fulfill this role with one battleship only. Scorp is ECM, Raven is a bit low on EHP imho after fitting MWD, TP, web....all this is needed to support torp damage. TBH I don't have to moan much about the Rokh in it's current state. I hear it's a capable sniper and a nice brawler at the same time.

EDIT for clarification.
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-03-12 18:00:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Zyress
The future of Caldari ships is bleak. Yeah you're given them more range (that they didn't need) and a faster rate of fire instead of a kinetic bias so that they can choose their damage type(meaning there's now no excuse not to fill up your cargo hold with multiple missile types). You are destroying what made them great when you take away their tank. What offensive bonus you give to missiles cannot compete with Lasers, or Projectiles, Rails can't compete with Artillery, and Blasters without being Tanky just don't have enough range. Add to that that they are slower than the competition with a bigger sig and Caldari ships will be gathering a lot of dust in the future.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#5 - 2012-03-12 20:47:37 UTC
Zyress wrote:
The future of Caldari ships is bleak. Yeah you're given them more range (that they didn't need) and a faster rate of fire instead of a kinetic bias so that they can choose their damage type(meaning there's now no excuse not to fill up your cargo hold with multiple missile types). You are destroying what made them great when you take away their tank. What offensive bonus you give to missiles cannot compete with Lasers, or Projectiles, Rails can't compete with Artillery, and Blasters without being Tanky just don't have enough range. Add to that that they are slower than the competition with a bigger sig and Caldari ships will be gathering a lot of dust in the future.


So by that logic, the way to boost Caldari ships would be to remove gank and add tank. With the end result preumably being something like a quad-purger Drake.

Yeah, I think I'll file that line of thinking somewhere safe.
fgft Athonille
Doomheim
#6 - 2012-03-12 23:07:32 UTC
reproc to make tengus and falcons
Denuo Secus
#7 - 2012-03-13 11:00:39 UTC
Zyress wrote:
The future of Caldari ships is bleak. Yeah you're given them more range (that they didn't need) and a faster rate of fire instead of a kinetic bias so that they can choose their damage type...


What's wrong with true free damage type selection? Ever fought a T2 Gallente with the current Drake? And if missile range comes from missile velocity, that's very handy on medium and long range since your damage is applied faster. The Drake becomes much more flexible that way.

Zyress wrote:
...meaning there's now no excuse not to fill up your cargo hold with multiple missile types....


So as Minmatar do with ammo types. I don't hear anyone moan about it. On the contrary alot of people complain about fixed damage types of hybrid and laser turrets.

Zyress wrote:
...You are destroying what made them great when you take away their tank....


"them" is only the Drake. No other tech1 Caldari missile ship has tank bonus. Ocf...one could argue this is the reason why the Drake is such popular and considered as one of only three capable Caldari PvP ships. But I tend to think the reason for is something else: all other Caldari tech1 missile ships (Kestrel, Caracal, Raven) suffer from fitting issues since they're all lower tier ships. Caldari top tier is the hybrid line. As soon as I'm able to fit tank&gank or speed&gank at the same time on a Caracal I think it's a nice PvP cruiser.

Removal of tiers will bring alot more variety and opportunities IMHO.