These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Winter] EW Frigate Rebalance

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lucy Alfrir
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#281 - 2012-09-13 12:13:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucy Alfrir
I'm sorry to winge about the vigil, some more, but it looks to me like it's losing the ability to fit turrets.

If this is so, where's my arty platform?

The Breacher's being made into a dedicated missile boat, and TP bonuses are handy for arty too, so why not a tracking bonus for the Vigil?

Make it into a mini-Muninn, which has been sadly made irrelevant with the introduction of the Tornado, but that's another thread.

With space in the mids for tracking computer, TP, point, MWD and web.

Hmm maybe lose one midslot for a low, so 2x Gyro and a DC, but I could cope with 2,5,2
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#282 - 2012-09-13 15:49:57 UTC
I put this in the new T1 logi cruiser thread but I feel this might be a better place for this. Why couldn't these ships have there bonuses change so they could work as offensive or defensive ships. Right now each EWAR except for TP has a Remote Damp and Remote Boost. Why couldn't these ships be able to do either role. So the Griffin could provide ECM for the fleet or ECCM for the fleet. This would give fleets a whole new concept and make ships like this more viable in more situations.

People said that this would make remote sebo's to OP but I feel they need to be changed to be more inline with the way ECM works let the mod give less as a base but buff the bonuses to the selected ships that roles are to fit these.
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#283 - 2012-09-13 18:38:01 UTC
Personaly i like the look of these changes, but i sure hope you fix TP soon so the vigil dosent get left out. Also 5 mids on the Griffen may be a bit much tho i guess 1 of every raical jammer + a prop mod is ok, just getting a tad close to over powered.

I sure look forward to a T2 ewar frig buff soonish, if these buffs are anything to base off of. my sentinal needs another mid
LtauSTinpoWErs
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#284 - 2012-09-13 23:57:23 UTC
CCP Fozzie,

Is there any work being done in regards to buffing Electronic Attack Ships? Is this something we could hope for in the Winter Expansion release or would it be more logical to see this update take place in between the Winter and Summer expansion? I didn't feel it necessary to create a new thread so thought it would be best to post in here. Thank you and keep up the good work with ship re-balancing.

-LT
kalbrak Jr
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#285 - 2012-09-15 11:41:09 UTC
LtauSTinpoWErs wrote:
CCP Fozzie,

Is there any work being done in regards to buffing Electronic Attack Ships? Is this something we could hope for in the Winter Expansion release or would it be more logical to see this update take place in between the Winter and Summer expansion? I didn't feel it necessary to create a new thread so thought it would be best to post in here. Thank you and keep up the good work with ship re-balancing.

-LT



"We also realize that these changes will make the current problems with EAFs even more obvious, and we're putting a lot of thought into them as well."


That is from the first page!
Belsina
Noob Hole Project
#286 - 2012-09-15 17:28:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Belsina
i like the ideas about the E-War T1 Frigs :)

i support it
Kesthely
Mestana
#287 - 2012-09-17 18:44:05 UTC
With the Celestis getting the option to fit 3 guns or 3 launchers, how about giving the maulus the 2 turret 2 launcher option?
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#288 - 2012-09-18 06:34:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
I must agree with everything that has been said here about the ewar and ewar frig problems.

vigil -> give both web and tp bonuses; same for Minmatar T1 EW cruiser.

EAF -> add Covert Cloak and covert portal jump ability. EAF will be no more powerful than their Force Recon brothers. Compared to Force Recon, EAF dps is much less, EAF ehp is much less, even EAF EW is less, etc.

ECM -> Great idea that has been really butchered over the years thanks to mass whining about the Falcon (anyone heard of ECCM? seriously) and about the standard practice of fitting OP ECM to every spare medium slot of the non-EW ships for great effect. Now ECM is a headache to implement effectively (unless you just deploy the remarkably effective omni-ECM drones). We really need to simplify ECM alot. We need to combine the multis' omni jamming with racial strength, distance, and reduced cap. ECM on an eWar ship should be as effective and simple to implement as any other form of ewar. Convert the hit or miss non-sense to a constant effect. No other ewar is probabilistic and the chance-based mechanic makes this form of ewar UNDEPENDABLE. Every other form of ewar is dependable. Neuts and points don't even stack like the other ewar.

How is a fleet supposed to practically or effectively coordinate ewar on a large scale? Logistics have the broadcast system. How about we let ewar ships see what fleet ewar from the fleet is being applied to each target too.

EDIT: Talking about ewar frigs opens a huge can of worms with ewar. You can't get the ewar frig right until the ewar is right.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Tatjana Braun
Black Lotus Industrial
#289 - 2012-09-19 14:22:47 UTC
I have a Idear for the TP:
To his Signatur Bonus, give it a Speed Reduction Bonus for The Damagecalculation.
So Guns will hit a Target as if it were x% slower and Missels wil make damage in that way, without a real speedreductin af the Target.

I think on this way TP will make more sense in fights against Ships in the same size.

http://eve-radio.com/ https://www.daisuki.net/ für slle animefans
Aiifa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#290 - 2012-09-19 15:18:22 UTC
I hope these changes are reworked totally before being pushed. They're in the right direction, but they're not quite right. The answer to difficult to fly and flimsy ships isn't to throw more slots and fitting at them. It's to balance everything around them. Including gameplay.


I've already whined about this here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=692924#post692924
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#291 - 2012-09-28 20:40:23 UTC
I'd like to see the target painter reduce turret resolution as well as bloom signature. Damage increase from tp is 4 times greater on missles than it is on turrets. Cutting guns resolultion about the same as sig radius blooms almost equalizes the damage a tp brings to the field.

I realize this affects the attacking ships instead of the attacked ships and is harder to program. My original idea was to add a field for each ship in game that determined turret resolution effectiveness. and to add this factor into the tracking/chance to hit formula.

This may not be necessary though as we already have packets carrying damage and ewar effects back and forth and this correction may be able to be incorporated into them in a simpler manner but one that could introduce lag if misused. I lean toward adding a variable to the data structure and modifying the tracking formula to accompanying it though as I see lag and bandwidth as more important than processor loading.

After you balance missles and turret damage increases, balancing the effitveness of the competing ewars will be simpler. Another benefit of the data structure mod approach is that ways to balance armor and shield become available because shield boats sig should be a problem and it is not because sig only affects turrets within relatively narrow constraints at this time.
Weasel Leblanc
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#292 - 2012-10-01 04:18:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Weasel Leblanc
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The Crucifier and Vigil are being given strong roles towards longer range disruption, and the fact that the Griffin and Maulus are more medium range oriented is intended and part of the overall environment change.

CRUCIFIER:

Frigate skill bonuses:
7.5% Bonus to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness per level
10% Bonus to Tracking Disruptor optimal range per level
Slot layout: 2 H, 4 M (+1), 3 L, 2 turrets
Fittings: 27 PWG (+2), 235 CPU (+20)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 250(-24) / 400(+25) / 350(+21)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 330 (+80)/ 180s (-7.5s)/ 1.8333333 (+0.5)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass): 350 (+68) / 3.35(-1.09) / 1064000
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+10) / 45(+40)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 64km (+16.5) / 540 (+100) / 6
Sensor strength: 14 Radar
Signature radius: 38 (-8)
Cargo capacity: 265 (+100)


MAULUS:

Frigate skill bonuses:
7.5% Bonus to Sensor Damp effectiveness per level
10% reduction in Sensor Damp capacitor use per level
Slot layout: 2 H (-1), 4 M (+1), 3 L (+1), 2 turrets
Fittings: 28 PWG (+3), 230 CPU (+10)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 300(-13) / 350(-1) / 400(+71)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 275 (+25)/ 150s (-37.5s)/ 1.8333333 (+0.5)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass): 375 (+69) / 3.25(-0.626) / 1063000
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 20(+10) / 30(+20)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 64.5km (+14.5) / 520 (+100) / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 40 (-8)
Cargo capacity: 275 (+100)


I can't help but think that making the Maulus more mid-ranged instead of more long-ranged kind of defeats the purpose of the RSD as an ewar module for making enemies less effective at long range. As it stands, it just won't work as well as the rest - reducing the enemy's maximum lock range becomes progressively less useful when you have to get closer to do it.

The Maulus needs a range bonus, badly.

If you really want two mid-ranged EAFs and two long-ranged EAFs, may I suggest making the Crucifier the second mid-ranged EAF instead? After all, tracking disruption multiplies with transversal, and you can get more transversal out of the same speed when you're closer in.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#293 - 2012-10-01 06:15:40 UTC
Not sure if the range is an issue on that Maulus tbh, should be fairly easy to fit it to damp someone out from 80km, the target ending up with <20km (10?) lock range. Keep in mind the damp bonus is stronger than currently in game.

Principally you are right, damping ships need to have range, but damps have pretty massive falloff and in my experience perform fine in falloff.

Maxing out all my damping skills before Retribution :)

.
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings
#294 - 2012-10-01 07:28:52 UTC
The crucifier is going to be OP as all get-out. With a fairly cheap fit (<5 million) and modest skills, you'll be able to nail up to three targets with 65-70% disruption from over 100km. Or completely shut down one poor bastard altogether.

This winter is full of stealth drone buffs. :P
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#295 - 2012-10-02 09:10:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Kai'rae Saarkus
Apparently, too many open tabs is a bad idea.
Lord Distortion
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#296 - 2012-10-07 21:36:03 UTC
MAULUS... with sensor damps AND ecm drones? Woo! *dances* Pirate
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#297 - 2012-10-10 09:18:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Kai'rae Saarkus
Weasel Leblanc wrote:

I can't help but think that making the Maulus more mid-ranged instead of more long-ranged kind of defeats the purpose of the RSD as an ewar module for making enemies less effective at long range. As it stands, it just won't work as well as the rest - reducing the enemy's maximum lock range becomes progressively less useful when you have to get closer to do it.

The Maulus needs a range bonus, badly.

If you really want two mid-ranged EAFs and two long-ranged EAFs, may I suggest making the Crucifier the second mid-ranged EAF instead? After all, tracking disruption multiplies with transversal, and you can get more transversal out of the same speed when you're closer in.


You've never flown damp boats I take it?

Damps work at 100Km without any range bonuses, at level 4 skills. (Well as much as Damps can be said to "work")
AND if you do feel the need for a range bonus a Particle Dispersion Field Projector Rig does +20% / rig.

At present you need 2 Bonused Damps to have an assured effect. 3 will pretty well completely take a ship out. 1 Damp will help, but you have to have a gang designed to make it work. A 7.5% bonused damp won't change that fundamental rule of thumb.

Without a cap-use bonus a damp takes at best 1.8 Cap/second (that's with max skills, and best named). Which means MWD, 2xDamps on a Maulus will set you back roughly -7 Gj/s, fitting anything active to that 4th mid would just cap you out in seconds.

The Maulus NEEDS that cap use bonus.

As it is you can fit an approx 100Km Maulus that will work nicely
High: Drone Link Augmentor, Spare.
Meds: MWD, 3 x Phased Muons
Lows: DCU, Sig Amp, 200mm RRT Plates
Rigs: 2 x Particle Dispersion Rigs (60Km Opt, 90 Km Fall-off on Damps), Small Inverted Sig Field Rig

And voila the Maulus is a Long Range EWAR frig.
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#298 - 2012-10-14 15:59:56 UTC
Uris Vitgar wrote:
Perhaps instead of regarding target painting as ewar, we should be thinking of it asway to bypass ewar. It's already a counter to tracking speed TDs, although nobody uses it that way. What if painting a target forced it to be lockable, even if it's out of lock range or beyond the max number of targets? Then the vigil's range bonus would be extremely useful. Instead of fitting sensor boosters a sniper fleet might rely on their painters to allow them to lock at long range. An ECCMed up painter might make a good counter to ECM in small gangs



I would like to bring this up again, if balanced right, this could be a grand way to make target painters really neat and worth having.

It even fits the "Minmatar theme" of guns and raw damage over ewar by basically being a "**** this ewar ****" button.
Kai'rae Saarkus
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#299 - 2012-10-15 11:21:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Kai'rae Saarkus
Sheynan wrote:
Uris Vitgar wrote:
Perhaps instead of regarding target painting as ewar, we should be thinking of it asway to bypass ewar. It's already a counter to tracking speed TDs, although nobody uses it that way. What if painting a target forced it to be lockable, even if it's out of lock range or beyond the max number of targets? Then the vigil's range bonus would be extremely useful. Instead of fitting sensor boosters a sniper fleet might rely on their painters to allow them to lock at long range. An ECCMed up painter might make a good counter to ECM in small gangs



I would like to bring this up again, if balanced right, this could be a grand way to make target painters really neat and worth having.

It even fits the "Minmatar theme" of guns and raw damage over ewar by basically being a "**** this ewar ****" button.


It's also a massive Nerf to ECM and Sensor Damps.

Which isn't a bad thing: if it's balanced correctly.

Otherwise it becomes the must fit module because it makes any other EWAR irrelevant (and makes ECCM pointless on anything other than the TPing ship and Logis).

All that being said, I like it. It should be easier to balance than a lot of other changes, if only because it doesn't scale well (1-2 TP is a credible idea, but TPs everywhere isn't [outside of niche use ie. the AT]), meaning that ECM/Damps would still work well to take out some ships (ECM means ONLY the primary is target-able, so it still takes out ships that don't target the primary; Damps can still delay lock-time or take Logis out of play).

Although, I also don't think it should be a binary attribute (TP on means I can always target it) rather make it more nuanced: ie. TP increase signature (descreasing the effects of TDs, and Damps "scan res" scripts) and should also act as a high strength ECCM for retaining a lock on that target and as a high strength SEBO for targeting range against that target.... but coding that would depend very much on how ECM is balanced in future, and how EVE calculates lock ranges.
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#300 - 2012-10-15 17:36:41 UTC
It will depend on the implementation how massive the nerf would be.

You could make the strength of the effect weak on an unbonused hull and strong on the dedicated hulls, similar to ECM.
That would make Vigils/Bellicoses/Rapier/Huginn/Hyena easy to spot primary targets for enemy ECM/damps or dps.
(Imagine that, a ship is called primary because of its target painters Big smile. )

Also, I like the idea of a granular effect of increased sensor power only against the targeted ship, but it sounds really difficult to code.