These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Attack frigate changes

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#381 - 2012-08-01 22:56:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:
Quote:
well you just proved my point :)
and inty speed of 4km/s plus wipes off 100 dps ish

Every time you post it just confirms your ignorance. An inty going 4km/s would not be hit by rockets (or much else, actually) at all.
An inty in web range on the other hand (you know, that area rocket ships actually fight in?*) is not going 4km/s and will melt very quickly.


*Just giving a free tip to someone who obviously doesn't know how to fly a rocket frigate.


wow you people clearly don't scroll up and read between the lines or even the previous posts properly... seems kind of deliberate though ignoring other posts that would make your comment seem a bit ridiculous mm.. wonder why?..

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Avi Pardiwalla
Doomheim
#382 - 2012-08-02 01:30:40 UTC
Would all Caldari frigates be getting a bonus to Rockets or just the condor?
Connall Tara
State War Academy
Caldari State
#383 - 2012-08-02 09:03:51 UTC
In this case its just the condor recieving a 10% kinetic missile damage bonus. I suspect we'll see a simmilar layout with the kestrel however the fact that the kessie has not only a 4th launcher but will probably recieve a 4/3/3 layout to make use of them (i can but hope) will go a long way to differentiating between it and the condor.


What I'm now interested to look into is the Bantam which if memory serves was listed to be a more rail intensive combat vessel to counterpart the merlin. perhaps a return of the merlin's old range and resist bonus combined with 3 railguns?

Naomi Knight - "You must be CCP Rise alt , that would explain everything"
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#384 - 2012-08-02 10:26:51 UTC
Connall Tara wrote:
In this case its just the condor recieving a 10% kinetic missile damage bonus. I suspect we'll see a simmilar layout with the kestrel however the fact that the kessie has not only a 4th launcher but will probably recieve a 4/3/3 layout to make use of them (i can but hope) will go a long way to differentiating between it and the condor.


What I'm now interested to look into is the Bantam which if memory serves was listed to be a more rail intensive combat vessel to counterpart the merlin. perhaps a return of the merlin's old range and resist bonus combined with 3 railguns?


it wont have the resist bonus on a sniper as there going to remove it from drake i wonder if sacrilege will have its arm resis bonus removed too mm....

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#385 - 2012-08-02 10:48:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington
Quote:
wow you people clearly don't scroll up and read between the lines or even the previous posts properly... seems kind of deliberate though ignoring other posts that would make your comment seem a bit ridiculous mm.. wonder why?..

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. I quoted your post verbatim, and pointed out all the ways you're wrong. What exactly is ridiculous here besides your terrible knowledge?

Quote:
it wont have the resist bonus on a sniper as there going to remove it from drake i wonder if sacrilege will have its arm resis bonus removed too mm....

... Are you really this simple? The Drake has caught the eye of the devs because it's seriously overpowered compared to other battlecruisers, especially in the tank department.
The Sacrilege isn't even comperable, the only thing it has in common with the Drake is the fact it uses missiles, the two ships work completely differently.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#386 - 2012-08-02 11:18:34 UTC
well actually at optimal dmg drake and sacrilege are both HAMS fit firing from 16km only difference is that drakes bonuses apply to heavies not just HAMS like the sacrilege has

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Duchess Starbuckington
Doomheim
#387 - 2012-08-02 12:41:55 UTC
No, that is not the "only difference". Drakes are shield tankers capable of an 80k EHP+ tank with only 3 slots while maintaining superb damage projection and solid DPS. The Sacrilege on the other hand is an armour tanking cruiser, only really workable at close range which has to sacrifice a lot of DPS in order to fit a proper tank (and still comes out sub-par to the Drake.)

The funniest thing about the comparison you made is that, in contrast to the Drake, the Sacrilege is actually in need of a pretty major buff. Clearly the two aren't as similar as an ignorant newbie would think.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#388 - 2012-08-02 13:05:21 UTC
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:

The funniest thing about the comparison you made is that, in contrast to the Drake, the Sacrilege is actually in need of a pretty major buff. Clearly the two aren't as similar as an ignorant newbie would think.


The Sacrilege is not a bad ship. Tier 2 BC's just need a nerf because they can do the same thing for less ISK.

Brawling vs kiting is still in favor of kiting also and the Sacrilege can only brawl.
Denuo Secus
#389 - 2012-08-02 16:22:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Denuo Secus
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Duchess Starbuckington wrote:

The funniest thing about the comparison you made is that, in contrast to the Drake, the Sacrilege is actually in need of a pretty major buff. Clearly the two aren't as similar as an ignorant newbie would think.


The Sacrilege is not a bad ship. Tier 2 BC's just need a nerf because they can do the same thing for less ISK.

Brawling vs kiting is still in favor of kiting also and the Sacrilege can only brawl.


I'd really like to see more damage projection on Amarr missile ships. Beeing armor tanks they cannot rush into range easily. Gallente ships were boosted in terms of speed and agility recently to address this issue. I'd think the Amarr way should be more projection.

What does this mean? A generic missile bonus on all Amarr missile ships. Not only Khanid - also T1 Amarr boats which should get launchers during tiericide. Damage projection fits into the Amarr combat philosophy perfectly.

A Sacrilege with bonus on HMLs as well would be awesome and quite flexible.

On a side note: why specific missile bonuses (short range only) at all? As far as I know there is not a single turret ship with long range or short range turret bonus only. Why on missile ships? Generic missile bonuses would lead to more versatility. Which is a good thing imho.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#390 - 2012-08-02 20:13:43 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
All of these should drop the across-the-board role bonus, switch at least one and maybe both of the gun bonuses for something that actually helps them in the interception role (velocity/prop mod cap usage/agility/sig radius/scan res/prop jamming cap usage/etc), and remove a highslot or two.


They could do that, except that's the entire design philosophy behind tech 1 ships vs tech 2 ships. Tech 1 are generalist ships that are solid but don't excel at one thing or another, Tech 2 ships are pushed further into a specialized role (such as interception).

Dropping the generalist bonuses and giving them stuff designed for tackle just turns them into, well, interceptors. That's not to say these don't need further tweaking, but they're off to a good start. I'm glad to see CCP is bringing weak ships into line with stronger ones, rather than applying the nerf bat to all the ships that function well.


This 100000000² times this TBH ! -never nerf other thing than idiots, always bring stuff to the best level so people have FUN playing their FAVOURITE game and using SHIPS intended for X role.

This excellent buff is supposed to bring much fun and gaming experience, actually give players the "will" factor to try it out, pvp isn't that expensive or hard, you just need good tools and lots of practice and these ships are now just AWESOME!! for that.

brb
Cedo Nulli
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#391 - 2012-08-03 02:57:25 UTC
Great changes ... Love it how your bringing otherwise shuttle worthy ships into usable field !
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#392 - 2012-08-03 17:09:04 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:

This 100000000² times this TBH ! -never nerf other thing than idiots, always bring stuff to the best level so people have FUN playing their FAVOURITE game and using SHIPS intended for X role.

That is silly. Sometimes, you overbuff ; it's completely absurd to then buff every other ship because of a mistake.

And sometimes, you just give too much capabilities to the things you design : that is a mistake too. Buffing everything else to acomodate a mistake is completely idiot.

And that's even more important in a sandbox.
Aaron Greil
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#393 - 2012-08-03 18:19:59 UTC
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet (I didn't read the entire thread) but what about rocket ships other than the hookbill and hawk. It seems everyone is basing their appraisal of the weapon system off of two powerful ships. What about the vengeance? Even as a rocket platform, people still use ACs on it. Lets look at the entire spectrum of rocket based ships before we say rockets are OP or underpowered. Maybe a 10% rocket buff is in order, but the hookbill's and hawk's bonuses brought in line with other ships of the same classes.
Deena Amaj
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#394 - 2012-08-03 19:50:47 UTC
There is actually a debate around rockets just these last pages.
Or are you referring to CCP devs?

confirthisposmed

I'm probably typing on a Tablet too, which means the auto-correct is silly and fixing typos is a pain. I ain't fixing them.
The VC's
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#395 - 2012-08-04 02:18:29 UTC  |  Edited by: The VC's
For all the talk in this thread, on topic and off, it's surprised me that, having spent a week on sisi playing with these frigs, I haven't seen anybody flying anything that wasn't a cap or blinged out battleship. No frigs.

Come on chaps, get on the test server! My requests for 1v1's in the new attack frigs have been met with silence, or occasionally 'What new attack frigs?'

They're fooking awesome, but not quite there yet. Less talking, more testing.

I'm getting bored of shooting rats.
Vaal Hadren
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#396 - 2012-08-04 12:11:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaal Hadren
Aaron Greil wrote:
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet (I didn't read the entire thread) but what about rocket ships other than the hookbill and hawk. It seems everyone is basing their appraisal of the weapon system off of two powerful ships. What about the vengeance? Even as a rocket platform, people still use ACs on it. Lets look at the entire spectrum of rocket based ships before we say rockets are OP or underpowered. Maybe a 10% rocket buff is in order, but the hookbill's and hawk's bonuses brought in line with other ships of the same classes.


Uh, do you still play EVE?

You're kinda right, but only kinda (AC Vengeance is a thing of the past mang).

The Vengeance is an absolute beast now, out DPSing the Retribution in almost every configuration.

Unbonused rockets may well be sub par still (debatable - its not clear to me that there's a problem) but bonused rockets are (honestly) fine. They should change the description on them though so it no longer reads 'Not intended as a primary weapon system' - that's some legacy 'defender missile' fluff.

Assume that with a post assault buff Vengeance and you'll lose your Blarpy.

Those rocket ships that truly rock with rockets (heh) are all double damage bonused (RoF and Missile Velocity also = DPS) - ANY weapon with dual damage bonuses is killer. Rocket's variable damage selection, high rate of fire (comparatively in the missile class), never missing mechanics and sheer cool factor makes up for their poor range and (appropriately) less than blaster violence (I mean, what ARE you asking for?).

Even a Malediction pumps out a reliable 90 DPS with rockets in most configs (3 launchers, single damage bonus - far more than an AC punisher with a gyro and about what you'd get on an AC Vengeance with >4< AC's) and it's a freaking 'lame duck reputed' interceptor.

On that note, Interceptors are guaranteed to be hit with the buff bat before long so it's ill advised to compare these new attack frigs to current TII 'ceptors or to muse about how they're stepping firmly on their toes. TII Interceptors will (logically) get their due necessitated largely by the changes to these 'attack frigates' and by the liberal buff batting of everything else in their weight class since Crucible/Inferno.

This is getting pretty off topic though, apologies for that.

I'm really excited by these frigs and can't wait for the 'EWAR T1's', the actual EAF TII's and Interceptors to get their tweaks.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#397 - 2012-08-05 21:18:43 UTC
Aaron Greil wrote:
What about the vengeance? Even as a rocket platform, people still use ACs on it.


Vengeances are flown with rockets now. You've probably seen a fit that maximized tank and didn't care about dps at all.



Aaron Greil wrote:
Lets look at the entire spectrum of rocket based ships before we say rockets are OP or underpowered.


Nobody has suggested that they are overpowered as far as I can tell. Rocket ships are doing well at the moment. Is there any particular rocket ship that strikes you as underpowered? If so, what makes you think that the problem is rockets and not the ship?
Justin Cody
War Firm
#398 - 2012-08-06 00:29:16 UTC
the tormentor could stand a slight change - perhaps adding a little more grid and cpu and another turret hard point....OR change it's role to a logistics frigate. give it a cap recharge or cap amount bonus, role bonus to rep range and a per level increase to remote repair amount.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#399 - 2012-08-06 00:38:25 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Aaron Greil wrote:
What about the vengeance? Even as a rocket platform, people still use ACs on it.


Vengeances are flown with rockets now. You've probably seen a fit that maximized tank and didn't care about dps at all.



Aaron Greil wrote:
Lets look at the entire spectrum of rocket based ships before we say rockets are OP or underpowered.


Nobody has suggested that they are overpowered as far as I can tell. Rocket ships are doing well at the moment. Is there any particular rocket ship that strikes you as underpowered? If so, what makes you think that the problem is rockets and not the ship?


Pretty much THIS, but ships with rockets that are under powered?

The Hawk...but only because active tanking is so cap intensive and even t2 shield boosters suck hind tit compared to their dead-space brethren. Not even in the same league and don't have enough benefit to be useful. one ends up going to an oversized module.
Kethry Avenger
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#400 - 2012-08-06 01:50:11 UTC
After looking harder at these ships and how they compare to each other. And going on Sisi and messing around with some fittings I would say I think the Executioner could use a range bonus. Keeps it in line with the other 2 attack frigates with range bonuses and then you could get rid of the dumb -10 to turret cap use and just buff the cap and recharge rate to be adequate for a ship expected to fit a point, MWD and lasers.

And again I'm not wedded to the range bonus I just hate the gimp of the -10 cap use to turrets.