Ships & Modules

Cheers for a good post Zyella!

The only thing i can say to give you a little summary is... that if you look at the whole discussion in all the various threads: then you will see that most people agree that something should be done about the Drake.

Not all people agree that something need to be done with the Tengu (but it's definately an interesting discussion).

The question is what method to use and the discussion of what is wrong with the Drake, not that something is.

In the discussion of the Drakes ship bonuses or how HML work, the two sides are deadlocked.

People like me don't belive there is a problem with the Drake compared to other BC or HML compared to other cruiser-sized weapon systems.


What do people talk about?

I have personally not seen anyone who argue ships-modules reach any credible conclusion. The problem with any suggestion that have regarded the Drake (changing it's bonuses from resist / kinetic to range / rof) or HML (with 25% range nerf, 20% dmg nerf and adding TD and TE to it's equation, while they remove drawbacks from the ammo and buff the Tech II ammo), is that i don't see them affecting the Drake when paired in a large group.

People like me don't see any problem with the Drake when it's flown in groups of 2, 10, 25 or 50 players (solo, small or medium gangs). The problem with the Drake begin to appear when you have more than 50 players (large fleets) and especially when you have more players than whoever you are shooting at.


Why have Drakes remained popular despite attempts at nerfing them?

Any solution that involve introducing new ships that are better in larger groups and do more damage over longer distances with less of a tank is just that: it's even better in larger gangs fighting smaller gangs. That's the problem with the Drake.

If you drop the Drake's reach to 60km (instead of 80km) or it's damage from 350 / 2000 to 300 / 1600 you will not really deal with how it's still useful at sitting still in large groups while Logis repair you and Recons tackle for you. Many Drake gangs don't use the full 80km anyway, because their tacklers are at 60km. The gangs that could outrange Drakes (and shoot from 100km) existed even before Talos/Oracle/Naga/Nados were introduced. Many Drake gangs have more Drakes than they need anyway, so the damage doesn't really matter.


Why have HAC and other BC hurt from those changes but not the Drake?

What will hurt from these changes are other HML ships or HML in smaller gangs. They will struggle finding roles when the advantages of Missiles have been made to match Turrets (same range, same damage etc.) while the drawbacks of Missiles are not adressed - because they are not properly understood by the community at large.

It's going to be difficult to find new bonuses for a ship like the Cerberus that make it overall appealing if it's not popular even when it does 20% more damage at range and shoot 50% further, because it doesn't shoot as accurate, doesn't move as fast, doesn't apply it's damage as quick and doesn't do as much damage up close. If the weapon system is built to be inferior the ammunition and ship bonuses will have to be awesome instead, and that can lead to new problems.


What's the problem with trying to fix problems in other mechanics by adressing ships and modules?

The people who understand Missiles will see those new, actual, imbalances rise and exploit them. They will see them in things like how you can stack AB + TD to make it very difficult to deal damage to you (in small gangs where the TD is powerful), or stack TE + Painters to make Missiles very powerful against smaller ships. Those are real imbalances! Small gang Drakes doing no damage or specialist Missile ships being way too good at killing small ships.

AB against Missiles is already very powerful (AHACs, 100mn Tech III etc.)

Painters / Rigs / Webs etc. with Missiles against smaller ships is also already very powerful (AML Cerbs etc.).

They don't need TE and TD to make them better or worse.


How will changing the ships or modules make the real problems even worse?

The changes will also be much more powerful in solo, small or medium - than they will be in large groups.

This meanwhile CCP continue to do other changes (buffs to Tech I, moving Tech II specialist roles, such as Repairs) to cheaper ships that also help larger groups.

And also do things that are completely against the philosophy EVE was based on: Killing cheap ships is less meaningfull (that's removing "hardcore death"). They make it difficult for smaller groups to interact with larger groups (that's removing "emergence") and they make traditional roles in other MMO such as "Healers" more pronounced (and that goes against the idea of EVE as an open-progression game, where all players should fly everything and where specialist roles are limited to expensive and difficult ships so we don't see too many of them and so smaller groups can use them as number equalizers - because fielding many of them ramp up the cost of a large gang). Gangs with expensive lynchpins (Logis) become "cheap" when the other ships cost less.


What are the real problems and how can we fix them?

1. Cost effect
Cheap ships will always be more powerful when you have more players, expensive ships will see more risk grow in having more ships. Then it's not arbitraily good to have more. Now: more = less risk.

2. Targets in smaller scale
The problem since the Dominion expansion is that CCP have not been able to introduce targets that appeal to smaller gangs. Those targets are things like "ships in space": incentives for players to make their own money (Ring mining vs. POS mining). They could also be things that let smaller gangs interact with structures. Instead of having hitpoints (that disappear faster when you have more ships or bigger ships) they could have timers independent of number/size.

I agree with you about Logi's. While it is a nice premise, in a game like Eve it throws in a dramatic curve ball, that I am not sure I like at all. I WANT to love it, but I think you are spot on with your assessment of the problems they will bring to game.

As to the Drake, the only problem I ever really had with it was that it makes a very good buffer tank, with decent to high passive regen, and decent dps at ALL engagement ranges, for little to no Cap, at comparatively low cost. It's the full package, the fact that it gets better and better the larger the group comp gets is just gravy. What they can do to change it I have no idea (I personally think a lot of it goes down to my personal belief that shield / armor tanking as a whole needs a rework).

Tengu's...... tough one. I do feel they are OP atm, but that is mainly just 1 or 2 subsystem combo's that it can pull off (the highly touted 100mn ab for example), which can be adjusted without nerfing it into the ground. Other than that I feel all subsystems need work to make them all desireable, and the other T3's need love (legion in particular, but hey, I am biased there).

Missiles.. I started as Caldari, then went over to Amarr. I do love missiles, but a good part of the missile application system needs work imho. HML's I agree with the Devs were too good across too many ranges. Dropping the range a bit: I get that, and can agree with. Dropping the damage, and putting it onto TC's bonus ... I am still on the fence. I like the idea but not sure how well it will work in application. Increasing the speed? Oh hell yes, they need it, in pvp in particular (they should increase the speed of ALL missiles by a margin).

Tracking disruptors working on missiles... no. There is already a huge problem (to me) in game with the proliferation of, and almost need for neut / nos on every ship you can fit it on. This falls closer to the above mentioned 'logi everywhere' issue. Especially for active tanks and 1/2 of the weapon systems in game that use cap. Nos / Neut should be a specialty item, uncommon but feared, just like ECM.
-I brought up an idea a while back (granted, blatantly plagiarized from my nephew, but hey he never put it on line heh) to scrap defender missiles altogether, and to put in a 'point defense' system very similar to our own Navy CIWZ anti-missile systems. A mid slot short range laser system, with fitting requirements similar to TD's. It would have a chance to shoot each incoming missile (giving a bit of randomness to how much damage gets through per volley). This would mean a ship could fit TD's vs turrets, or PD vs missiles, but unless they wanted to go mid-heavy they usually would not do both.

The 'other' ships like the Cerberus, Khanids, and other non-drake/tengu that are being affected. I just hope they are very careful in there adjustments with them.

I feel the game is getting to the point where the ships are mostly decent, but it is time to work on some of the game physics that are behind the scenes: Armor tanking, some weapon system tweaking, POS (don't know much about this one, but I have heard many call out for adjustments), some of the 'staples' like webs, neuts, ewar drones, etc., being fidgeted with a bit, Motivation to go to Low-Sec.

CCP has picked up the ball and run with it, which has been amazing the past several months. I'm sure they will drop that ball here and there, but (so far) it has been a ton more hit than miss. I am hoping to hell they do not homogenize the game. Don't get me wrong, I always did hate the huge learning cliff of the game, as it chases away a lot of otherwise valuable players I would love to see populating this amazing universe. But if they, excuse the term, 'WOW" Eve down, it would be the one thing other than family that could finally get me to leave it for good.

P.S: Love everything about your post #343 above. Some GREAT ideas.

~Zyella

I'm sprinting way off-topic now, but a second thing worth mentioning is that CCP have been all too keen to punish creativity lately.

It's pertinent to this topic (regarding "weapon specific counters" etc).

In the last post i put citation marks around the "best", because i don't really want to make it a discussion about good or bad. Instead i'd argue the point that you should design the game around the ingenuity of certain use rather than the lack of creativity to use.

It can be seen in many recent examples.

When CCP decided to "nerf" Burn Edens creative use of ECCM (et al.) to make 150-200km sniping viable again, by escaping the direct on-grid probe-to-warp they inadvertently nerfed those modules and they left the ships that still do shoot 150km+ rotting. That it enabled smaller gangs to interact with larger gangs was not considered or re-balanced. It was just condemned and removed. Now most people sit around and complain about ECCM not having any general appeal instead, while Probing is rarely used and when it is used - arbitrarily useful (outsourced to alts, with high success rate).

When RnK began to showcase creative use of Carrier "refitting" in their movies, CCP's kneejerk reaction was to nerf that. That it had been around since virtually forever, is the entire reason to have such a function on a capital and that those capitals do tend to commit when used (so some flexibility doesn't necessarily have to be completely imbalanced) was something the community basicly had to yell at them loudly about. Luckily they listened then. That similar things could obviously be applied to Tech III who are supposed to be "flexible" with "refitting" have not amounted to anything.

When it occured to CCP that "double bubble" setups on Interdictors had become somewhat standard they moved to remove that. They didn't consider that it had been around for years and never was regarded as much of a problem. They didn't consider that you could still bubble two sides of a gate with two ships instead of one (so they just let larger groups continue to use the tactic, but disabled smaller groups; who didn't have enough players to warrant using two Interdictors; from using it). They also didn't see how they in the same fell swoop removed the "stop bubble" tactic that had been around since the nano era, that enabled smaller gangs on the run to split apart larger gangs over gates and engage them staggeredly. That too, no matter how rare or inadvertent, did alot to make smaller interacting with larger more difficult.

Now "stop bubbles" are only for offensive use (ie., for larger gangs who can sacrifice ships to play offensively; or camps).

It's odd seeing this punishment of creativity (when it's not imbalanced or exploitive), while we streamline and dumb down to have the end result being less "emergence" and incentive to go out and fly your ship casually or interactively.

Other than some WH play, I rarely see Legions in action (but then I dont count the AT-X, too design specific), and do not see it much in null pvp (but i only see a certain region of null). I almost never see them in low sec from my own experiences, and when I do its in mid sized + groups (10-20ish range and up), or when they are involved in jumping a cap ship.
I do encounter Tengu's all over, and Proteus (usually about a minute before I die, they are BRUTAL out of stealth attackers, lol).
Loki seems to be the more well rounded of them, as I see several different fittings when I encounter them. Tengu its usually 1 of 2 fittings. Proteus is usually the same fit, and Legion is almost always the zealot-tank fit, or the Neut-mega tank tackler in groups.
I also get questioned often on my choice of Legion by people when I pull it out of the hangar, usually disparagingly, which makes me think it is not just my opinion that it is the weaker of the T3's. ;P

/shrug. It may just be my perspective from my own encounters. I don't doubt you on online stats, I am just going by my experience out there, which granted is usually as a solo or small group pilot.

~Zyella

How about this, you reimburse me all the skillpoints I had to train for these ships as well as all the isk I have spent on ships, modules and skill books as well as reimburse me the time Ive spent training for these ships and you can nerf them and I will also unsub all 5 of my accounts the next day.

o7

FIX the broken unused crap instead of breaking some of the most popular items in the game.

I get the disturbing feeling that you're going to outmode the T3 ships so entirely that they're just going to become another unused hull. Seriously, what was the point in making them in the first place, if they are just going to see a place as a multi-role ship which does none of them well? Fact is, if you can buy 5 Battle Cruisers for the price of one T3, and fill all the roles a T3 is capable of filling, only much better, who's going to buy them.

Shouldn't you be thinking of alternative roles? ..or something, to account for their existence, their nature and origin, and the fact that by their nature they cost 5 times as much as another ship in approximately the same class? Frickin' waste. Tech 3 is supposed to be, (in my opinion), a versatile ship with player customization options that serves a role as well as another for a higher cost.

Downgrading them will make them, and Wormhole space, worthless.

edit: Just a thought, but maybe you should consider making them an Inter-Role class ship, where any combination of Subs has them serving two roles effectively. Not as effectively as a ship specialized in either of those roles and fit properly for it, but better than one serving in either of those roles that isn't really intended too, though fit properly for it.

I'd also like to add this...

If you think "ISK balance" is only a question of ISK, then do the following experiment:

Fit a Tech I Frigate with Tech I modules and autopilot through Lowsec.

Do you think someone will shoot you?

Unless you come across someone who is -10 and incredibly bored you will not be "worth" the sec-hit and you will not even be "worth" the agression timer.

It's completely meaningless - much like a BC in a large gang.


Let's extend that to Empire:

Why doesn't anyone suicide-gank your Tech I fit Tech I Frigate?

Why do people suicide-gank faction-fit Golems, Paladins, Kronos or Vargurs?

It's because you can make a profit and you can impact the player.

The reason you don't see as many Legions out of w-space is that you are not forced into ball-touchingly close PVP in k-space. In k-space mobility is king. In w-space, EHP and DPS are key. For instance, I have rarely if ever seen Cynabals in w-space, never been killed by one because it can't tank a Cyclone at zero, and can't chase me through a wormhole from 20km as it's kiting me and gnawing on my buffer. At least, not before I jump back.

The Legion / Proteus are popular in w-space because they bring the buffer you need in low-mass hulls, with EWAR and neuting bonuses. For webs, armour Loki or a Vigilant.

Tengus are the ultimate PVE chariots for w-space. With armour RR and guardians the way it is, RR Tengu still works in the mid-sized gang space. But you'll find it hard to justify leeroying shield fleets through a wormhole because you can't make your logi as survivable as the ironclad or other pimped Guardians, and that's the end of it. Find me a 80K EHP Basi fit and I'll find you a 1.5Bn invul to make it happen. (arguably, this is because of the popularity of the Drake/Tengu for PVE driving the prices of shield pimp up relative to armour pimp; nerf the HML and it might change in time).

The issue with the proposed changed to TD's and missiles, as Nosirevbus says, will come with AHAC/armour T3's and sig tankers bringing, eg, a single Pilgrim loaded with massively bonused TD's to trash a whole gang of Drake/Tengus into impotence. In w-space this won't be a giant change, because when you are for reals, you're using these ships anyway.

In nullsec, I really doubt that TDs will scuttle Drakeblob. In large fleet battles TD will behave just like SD's. Theoretically if you have enough SD's you can lock-out the enemy from targeting you. In reality, you have to deploy far too many Lach/Arazu to actually achieve this due to the Drake having such a huge targeting range. Same with TD's. Meanwhile, your Drakes will give up a single midslot and chuck a Optimal scripted TC in their spare tank slot, and the Drakes you don't TD will have even greater missile range/velocity/explosion radius, etc. End result? Drakeblob will probably get better (just bring 20% more Drakes).

We may see interesting things, though. Twin-TC + TE HAM Drakes with ~35km HAMs, a revolution in damage projection which will scuttle the nerf of HMLs. Tracking linked Scimis buffing missile parameters while doing the logi they always did on the Drake blob.

I think it will be interesting to see how things pan out. I think that CCP will introduce more problems by spreading TD's and TE's to missiles. Especially the fact unguided missiles will be afffected - you'll be able to buff torp parameters so they will become ridiculous, but this may see more people doing BLOPs hotdrops with bomber gangs, so....

I always run out of space .

Looking at the long post above, i just want to remind you that a bit of a thin-red-line in the above is that: it's important to separate what is exclusive to ships and what pertain to the tanking systems.

Most of the issues people have is that they look at one ship doing something specific they want their ship to do.

They look at eg., their Deimos and want to kite with it like the Vaga. Then they drum up concerns regarding the plated speed or reach of blasters, while they completely ignore the features and advantages of the Deimos. They also completely overlook the actual balance, stats or logic (assuming a ship is slow because it's not as fast as an isolated example or because they look at what a rig does - and ignore what other rigs does not).

As much as things like Tengu and Loki illustrate exceptions (as above) they also cement the typical attributes people have a tendency to ignore. Take the rig-example (above) and think about eg., Eagles used as Zealots (resist-profiles, signature and hitpoint modifiers tend to matter then). That says alot about armor and shield.

That's why most concerns are so easily met, when they are oversimplified and inaccurate (as in how you can neut a repper but not an asb, while at the same time you can neut an invul but not an eanm, some people just look at the reppers and cry wolf). Take that one example of rep-resist and then think about it in terms of the complexity of whole ships or full gangs. Then you'll realize why there is so much misconception and lack of creativity.

Creative use is being swept away under the premise that "well that player is good, you can't use that as an example".

I see it as the complete opposite: That's why creative use make such good examples because they deal with all these wolves' tales (active armor, it's popularity, Falcons, ECM drones, ASB, drones, ships, classes, weapon systems, damage output or fancy tactical manoeuvers etc).

Are creative players "good" or do they simply pay attention to things most people overlook?

I am definately not a beliver in letting oppinions be, but you're being so amiable and unecessarily nice to me now that i can't keep insisting it .

I guess we'll have to leave it floating for a while and give some other people a chance to speak their minds.