These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Annoitte
Rogue Businessmen
#241 - 2012-09-14 21:59:59 UTC
I'm Down wrote:


No, i think disruptor is a prime choice... but even ewar isn't met.

Arbitrator... disrupt gun ships offensive abilities range/tracking (a defensive mechanic)
Blackbird... disrupts a ships locking abilities (a defensive mechanic)
Celestis.... disrups a ships target range or lock time (a defensive mechanic)
Belicose... increases a targets incoming damage (an offensive mechanic)

notice a disparity there?



It's probably already been said, but... It's Minmatar. Minmatar attack things, not hide from them. This type of E-War fits their combat philosophy perfectly. Offense is best defense, and all that.
OlRotGut
#242 - 2012-09-14 22:01:07 UTC
Kuehnelt wrote:
OlRotGut wrote:
Any news about the EAS, frigs/ships?


Sentinel et al.? Same news about everything else: "later."

Crucifier et al.? They're here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=142136&find=unread

News from the Bringing Solo Back podcast was that something like 40 ships are going to be changed in Winter, including I think the new ships. So you can tie your hopes to the math.



Yeah, I saw the Sentinel changes, but what about Kitsune, Hyena, Keres. Did I miss that info? (probably did) if so, I apologize.

I am just wondering what they're going to do with the EAS skill for the hulls that get changed, or does that skill just get removed completely and refunded back?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#243 - 2012-09-14 22:25:33 UTC
Well, the Keres and Hyena should be seeing boosts to their damp/painter bounses respectively. Whether or not you think that will fix the ships is a wholly different question.

(no)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Kuehnelt
Devoid Privateering
#244 - 2012-09-14 22:33:21 UTC
OlRotGut wrote:
I saw the Sentinel changes,


No, you didn't. Only changes to T1 hulls have been posted so far.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#245 - 2012-09-14 22:34:50 UTC
Kuehnelt wrote:
OlRotGut wrote:
I saw the Sentinel changes,


No, you didn't. Only changes to T1 hulls have been posted so far.


Fozzie has promised that the ewar changes to the T1 hulls will carry over to the T2 hulls. Thus, we know that the Sentinel/Curse/Pilgrim will have 7.5% tracking disruptor effectiveness come winter. The Keres/Arazu/Lach will have 7.5% damps as well. The Hyena/Huginn/Rapier will have 7.5% painters.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2012-09-14 22:57:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Terrorfrodo wrote:
7.5% bonus per level? Did you realize that this is dramatically better than what the T2 ships have? So even if T2 cruisers are planned to be brought in line with this later on, we will have a period of at least several months, or maybe even a year, where cheap t1 cruisers will be better at the jobs their T2 versions are supposed to be specialized in? This is ridiculous and completely unacceptable.

First you change FW so that 2-day-old alts can earn 100+ million ISK/hour in T1 frigates worth 3 million, now this. Please realize that you just can't make some changes without changing something else... at the same time, not many months later.


If we change the tracking disruptor bonus on the Arbitrator and Crucifier, we will change the bonus on the T2 versions at the same time.


I am a little curious and concerned I certainly never felt that tracking disruption needed boosting especially on the bonused ships. Given that the specialist ships will now have increased bonuses are there any plans to adjust the module effectiveness down a little?
Jon Joringer
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#247 - 2012-09-14 23:12:27 UTC
As an often Bellicose pilot, I'm glad it's getting attention (I've wanted it to be a missile boat for a while now). But even I don't agree with the drone bay-b/w. That's too much droneage. I agree with not liking the drone creep.
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#248 - 2012-09-14 23:21:18 UTC
This is probably a crazy and stupid suggestion.

But how about changing the Bellicose's missile bonus to a Web Drone bonus?

It will still remain more combat orientated since target painters are inherently more aggressive than other ewar, if they even count as ewar. Not to mention that the reduced speed granted by the web drones would in turn increase missile damage.

Main thing though that it would do is turn the Bellicose into an actual disruption cruiser instead of what basically looks like a mini-Golem. And I don't think anyone would say that the Golem is in any form, way or shape an ewar BS. Having webbing drones would allow it to actually disrupt other ships without infringing on Recon territory.

Not sure as to the actual percentage you'd want to put on the webbing drone bonus, but seeing how they suffer from stacking penalties I would say something like:

15% bonus to the speed and velocity factor of Webifier Drones.

This would increase both the speed of the drones, allowing them to catch MWD frigates as well as allowing the Bellicose to operate at larger ranges, in addition to greatly increasing the amount by which these drones slow (almost, but not quite, making them one size bigger).
Wivabel
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#249 - 2012-09-14 23:39:47 UTC
web/point/neut bonuses would be to powerful for T1 hulls IMO

I am not sure if I am going to log in anymore.......
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#250 - 2012-09-15 00:58:16 UTC
I think the best compromise for the sensor damps issue is to give ships that use them big bonuses, instead of ramping up the modules themselves, so as to avoid going back to the bad old days where everyone used sensor damps. To this end, consider raising the bonus from ships like the Celestis to more than 7.5% per level.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Sun Win
#251 - 2012-09-15 01:52:29 UTC
Aaron Greil wrote:
Still, perhaps I'm alone in this assessment, but in the past it seems that the four races had a primary and secondary weapons system, based on the tech 2 lineup.

Gallente -> blasters, drones
Caldari -> Missiles, rails
Amarr -> Lasers, unguided Missiles
Minmatar -> autocannons, artillery


No. It's been:
Gallente -> DRONES, HYBRIDS, (missiles); armour.
Caldari -> MISSILES, hybrids, (drones); shield.
Amarr -> LASERS, drones, (missiles); armour.
Minmatar -> projectiles, missiles, drones; armour, shield.

The joy and terror of Minmatar has always been that we have to train for everything (except for the other racial turrets) in term of both tank and gank. Gallente are the drones race. Amarr are the second drones race (bigger drone bays, less bandwidth). Caldari are the least drone-using of them all.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#252 - 2012-09-15 01:56:41 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
If we change the tracking disruptor bonus on the Arbitrator and Crucifier, we will change the bonus on the T2 versions at the same time.

Cool Smile

.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#253 - 2012-09-15 02:58:49 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
CCP " we don't want ships to fall into holes because of stupid teirs"

CCP "Certain ships must always have equal total slot counts"

CCP "drones are balance ok"


While they might only be synopsis in reality, these ideas are why the Devs suck at their jobs.

Saying that ships must have the same total slot count is so restrictive in balance and uniqueness that it's totally defeating your attempt to revamp all of these ships. Destroyers are the most noticable debacle, but these ships are just another notch on the bed post for the latest screw. Drones bays galore. Ship fittings that make no sense. Not understanding the problems of oversized fits. Not understanding the tracking problems in game. Further unbalancing things that are already powerful. Not nerfing things that are stupid powerful.

Go enjoy the props from average players who will sing your praises b/c they can't think past the hype, but this is exactly why player retainment is so far on the decline.

If you guys would do things like remove two slots from the Mach while allowing it to keep a speed advantage, it might actually balance out better with the other Pirate battleships. Instead, you see it as a ship that requires certain slot designs and therefore, must create a very stale build to balance it out.
Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate
#254 - 2012-09-15 04:50:49 UTC
Would it make more sense to have the Arbitrator lose a high slot for a medium slot for a 3/5/5 layout?

If the Omen and Maller become viable combat cruisers, the additional medium power slot would allow it to better play a support role. As is the new Arbitrator would have the same number of med slots as the new Crucifier. The grid limitations limit what can be fit in the high slots in gang support roles to frig sized modules anyhow.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#255 - 2012-09-15 04:53:14 UTC
I'm Down wrote:


Arbitrator... disrupt gun ships offensive abilities range/tracking (a defensive mechanic)
Blackbird... disrupts a ships locking abilities (a defensive mechanic)
Celestis.... disrups a ships target range or lock time (a defensive mechanic)
Belicose...disrupts a ships ability to avoid weapons fire by agile movement



fixed that for u

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
#256 - 2012-09-15 05:37:36 UTC
I'm Down wrote:
In exactly what way is a 542 dps Belicose with 0 disrupting effects a disruption cruiser?

It now does around 80 more dps than a 5% per leve damagel maller would do with 3 HS based on those proposed changes and about 31 more dps than the current 5 pulse 3 HS omen does. When does thinking ever come in to the picture at CCP?

Arbitrator, at least it's a "disruption cruiser" and does moderate dps. Belicose... i mean really?

And like several others have said, WTF do drones seem to be the primary balance tool for you guys when it completely goes out of character based on game lore. We've already had Developers say that 10% of server load during fights is drones.... want to make it even worse?


Target painters are not really "disruptive" in the traditional sense. They "disrupt" the enemy by allowing things like HAMs to kill quickly. Very quickly. So I think the Bellicose does the Minmatar style of EW justice. It disrupts the enemy, by killing them.
Yuri Intaki
Nasranite Watch
#257 - 2012-09-15 09:05:35 UTC
Perhaps arbitrator could have 2/2 option in high-slots for turrets and launchers. Would sort of prepare people to fly missile curse.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#258 - 2012-09-15 09:34:10 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good morning everyone. Gonna go over some of the key questions and comments I'm seeing in the thread so far.

That being said, building strawman fits optimized for EFT numbers is the oldest trick in the book for "winning" theorycrafting arguments and you shouldn't count on me not knowing the difference between the paper dps of a 4 damage mod rage ham setup and the actual value of that ship in space.
We're always open to evaluating ships with help from player feedback, but I'm going to ask everyone to make sure to keep your discussion constructive.
One of the things that makes paper meet structure is TP. It is very effective for missiles and almost as effective for drones. My fear is that this ship will replace the Caracal. That 10% range bonus does little for HAMs and are almost useless for HMLs, esp if not at 5. TP makes HAMs a lot more effective; for HMLs it can hit what the Caracal can't and use medium drones to hit the same small targets. I am very curious how this ship is not going to be simply better than the Caracal.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
I'm actually quite a fan of "Cruisers that have effectiveness bonuses to targeted aggressive midslot modules" but my fellow designers say it's not snappy enough.
That is what veterans have been calling them since the blog post that came out 7 years ago today. Btw, they are Tackle frigates. :P

CCP Tuxford wrote:
Tackling frigates Executioner, Condor, Atron and Slasher
These ships are already pretty fast and in general the fastest frigates of their respective races. The Executioner and Slasher are the fastest tech 1 frigs around but the Condor and Atron are simply too heavy and too slow to keep up as they are even slower than some of the other non tackling Minmatar frigates. Then there is the matter of the Executioner’s single med slot, Atron's targeting range bonus and Slasher's velocity bonus. These ships will then all get a speed boost at the very least with the Condor and Atron receiving mass reductions.
...
EWAR cruisers Arbitrator, Blackbird, Celestis, Bellicose
These ships all get EWAR bonuses similar to the EWAR frigates, that is the Arbitrator will receive a bonus to tracking disruptors, Blackbird to ECM, Celestis to sensor dampeners and Bellicose to target painters.
The new names make no sense, except for Exploration (formerly scout) frigates.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's true that the gameplay for the Bellicose and the Blackbird will be extremely different, but as nice as it is to have more consistency between certain aspects of each class, my priority will always be good gameplay and giving people chances to make decisions that matter in the game.
This I can get behind. There is too much homogenization, and mixing it up is good.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
It's quite possible that we may need to bump the Belli dronebay back to the 40m3 it has currently to balance it, we'll see as we go forward. As for the expansion of drones into more ships, it's a side effect of our desire to make drones a more mainstream weapon system instead of leaving Gallente pilots alone in the cold. The creation of the drone damage mod was another step in that direction and there's more we want to do. We balance ships based on their capabilities, not on making certain races specialized just for the sake of specialization.
A full flight of medium drones can do a lot of damage by itself. I say give it 3 medium drones. The Rupter has done well with that for years.


Btw, I am really curious, why were the ship class names changed (or were they forgotten)?
Dan Carter Murray
#259 - 2012-09-15 09:40:04 UTC
Does the dev team actually use the proposed changes on a test server to see if things get balanced?

Please test omen and maller for balancing against the following:
Rupture
Stabber
Vexor
Thorax
Moa
Caracal

Please announce when you've balanced cruisers with changes.

http://mfi.re/?j7ldoco 50GB free space @ MediaFire.com
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#260 - 2012-09-15 12:14:37 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good morning everyone. Gonna go over some of the key questions and comments I'm seeing in the thread so far.

That being said, building strawman fits optimized for EFT numbers is the oldest trick in the book for "winning" theorycrafting arguments and you shouldn't count on me not knowing the difference between the paper dps of a 4 damage mod rage ham setup and the actual value of that ship in space.
We're always open to evaluating ships with help from player feedback, but I'm going to ask everyone to make sure to keep your discussion constructive.
One of the things that makes paper meet structure is TP. It is very effective for missiles and almost as effective for drones. My fear is that this ship will replace the Caracal. That 10% range bonus does little for HAMs and are almost useless for HMLs, esp if not at 5. TP makes HAMs a lot more effective; for HMLs it can hit what the Caracal can't and use medium drones to hit the same small targets. I am very curious how this ship is not going to be simply better than the Caracal.


You do realize that the Caracal is getting changed as well? That the bonuses it has now will probably change..?

So comparing the two as they stand is very silly.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish