These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey] T1 Frigate Polish Pass and Naglfar fix

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tub Chil
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#201 - 2013-03-14 12:54:45 UTC
Would it be a good idea to give rifter damage + rof bonus, so that it follows same path as rupture/cane/tempest?
Small autos track pretty well already.

it's just sad that the best frigate is one of the worst now (together with punisher and tormentor)
Maratega
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#202 - 2013-03-14 15:14:38 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Vincent Gaines wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
fitting a third capital turret on the hull was too problematic and held up the idea.


Arrow Didn't the art department just crank out 4 brand-spanking new ships?
Arrow Didn't a fellow from the art department just do a Q&A and said they could easily do it?

I was under the impression the act of modifying a model to have another hardpoint was something that was along the lines of "old ccp" thinking.

This is a constructive question, in that in my limited knowledge of modeling and others' more advanced knowledge, that adding a hardpoint shouldn't be too difficult.

In fact, I believe a hardpoint on a ship was just recently modified. I'll take a minute to look up which ship that was.


From the latest patch notes::

Quote:

The locations of turrets on an Enyo have been changed to display properly.


One some ships its a lot easier than others. On the Ferox they were able to do it without too much trouble for Retri 1.1. For the Nag we evaluated the cost-benefit of changing the model vs adding the role bonus and decided the role bonus was the better stewardship of the time we have available.

It comes down to the fact that if we make the most efficient use of the time we have available we can make the best product possible for you all.

Edit: (and the Enyo as well)


I understand the reasons, but you doin it wrong!
This thinking leads to not fixing real bad mechanics and things, just rewrite stats.
CCP dont fix lp shops, dont fix bad idustrial and science mechanics and design, dont fix pos, dont fix sov mechanics.
Its too much time, too much work.
You writing ship stats instead...

Ship stats rebalance need too! But others tings need redone too!
CCP got all the resource for that! We pay you!

THEN DO IT!
And dont do marketing promises instead on Funfest, i got enough promises from last year, dont need more.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#203 - 2013-03-14 15:18:34 UTC
Maratega wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Vincent Gaines wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
fitting a third capital turret on the hull was too problematic and held up the idea.


Arrow Didn't the art department just crank out 4 brand-spanking new ships?
Arrow Didn't a fellow from the art department just do a Q&A and said they could easily do it?

I was under the impression the act of modifying a model to have another hardpoint was something that was along the lines of "old ccp" thinking.

This is a constructive question, in that in my limited knowledge of modeling and others' more advanced knowledge, that adding a hardpoint shouldn't be too difficult.

In fact, I believe a hardpoint on a ship was just recently modified. I'll take a minute to look up which ship that was.


From the latest patch notes::

Quote:

The locations of turrets on an Enyo have been changed to display properly.


One some ships its a lot easier than others. On the Ferox they were able to do it without too much trouble for Retri 1.1. For the Nag we evaluated the cost-benefit of changing the model vs adding the role bonus and decided the role bonus was the better stewardship of the time we have available.

It comes down to the fact that if we make the most efficient use of the time we have available we can make the best product possible for you all.

Edit: (and the Enyo as well)


I understand the reasons, but you doin it wrong!
This thinking leads to not fixing real bad mechanics and things, just rewrite stats.
CCP dont fix lp shops, dont fix bad idustrial and science mechanics and design, dont fix pos, dont fix sov mechanics.
Its too much time, too much work.
You writing ship stats instead...

Ship stats rebalance need too! But others tings need redone too!
CCP got all the resource for that! We pay you!

THEN DO IT!
And dont do marketing promises instead on Funfest, i got enough promises from last year, dont need more.







you are barking up the wrong tree, because Fozzie is a ship rebalance guy (atm).
different teams for different task n'stuff. go kick soundwaves butt concerning bigger changes in game mechanics.
NextDarkKnight
Storm Chasers.
Pandemic Horde
#204 - 2013-03-14 16:03:47 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
Quick Naglfar Comments ::

Ok, so you still get the double dps bonus for the Nag hull, correct?

On a separate note on the Nag...

There was a fringe case using the Naglfar, because it had 5 high slots... and that the launchers weren't actually bonused... you could drop one launcher, and lets say... use a Neut, or a NOS or something else.

Would you be interested in doing -1 high slot, and leaving the utility slot on the Naglfar - something that Minmatar hulls do have a tendency of having anyways?



Yes to the double damage bonus, the skill bonuses are not changing.

As for the utility high, we think the ship will be quite competitive with the three highs and the damage bonus. We did consider leaving a utility high on it but decided to keep it more in line with its peers.



I'd like if you devs went out for a night of drinking on this subject and reconsider the one utility slot. Remember all that training time and the Cherry it would put on the top of the rework. Since when did Mini care about it's peers anyway.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#205 - 2013-03-14 16:13:34 UTC
How about giving the rifter an optimal range bonus and he fittings to use arties? ^^

I like arties =<

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Jureth22
State War Academy
Caldari State
#206 - 2013-03-14 17:02:41 UTC
how about phoenix and revelation rebalance to be in line with moros?
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#207 - 2013-03-14 18:02:19 UTC
Jureth22 wrote:
how about phoenix and revelation rebalance to be in line with moros?

They will do it, soon (tm).
It's just about Fozzie hates split-weapons more than anything in EVE, so he managed to push this ninja-fix in before the main balancing pass on Dreads. I think it's wrong, and if citadel torps were fixed first, the old split-weaponed Naglfar could perform well enough. The same applies to Typhoon.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#208 - 2013-03-14 18:15:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Jureth22 wrote:
how about phoenix and revelation rebalance to be in line with moros?

They will do it, soon (tm).
It's just about Fozzie hates split-weapons more than anything in EVE, so he managed to push this ninja-fix in before the main balancing pass on Dreads. I think it's wrong, and if citadel torps were fixed first, the old split-weaponed Naglfar could perform well enough.


Yeah, that's the odd thing about the decision to prioritise the Naglfar over fixing citadel missiles. The split weapon system is a pain, but once you've trained those skills the current Naglfar is vaguely competitive, unlike the Phoenix. Fixing citadel missiles would help both and surely wouldn't take much more time that the Naglfar bonus change, so it's odd that the Phoenix is being ignored.

Maybe the plan is to delete citadel missiles entirely, but the graphical changes required on the Phoenix mean that it can't be done now? But even then it's pretty simple to increase its DPS by 40-50% for a short-term fix. What?
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#209 - 2013-03-14 19:19:26 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Maybe the plan is to delete citadel missiles entirely, but the graphical changes required on the Phoenix mean that it can't be done now? But even then it's pretty simple to increase its DPS by 40-50% for a short-term fix. What?

IMO, the only good way to fix citadel torps is to give them back their AOE damage. Not sure if it's technically feasible, especially for application in low-sec space. But if it is, that could be the worst nerf ever to slow-cat doctrine and even for supercarriers. And of course, all Naglfar pilots would bite their elbows missing that opportunities.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#210 - 2013-03-14 19:39:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Maybe the plan is to delete citadel missiles entirely, but the graphical changes required on the Phoenix mean that it can't be done now? But even then it's pretty simple to increase its DPS by 40-50% for a short-term fix. What?

IMO, the only good way to fix citadel torps is to give them back their AOE damage. Not sure if it's technically feasible, especially for application in low-sec space. But if it is, that could be the worst nerf ever to slow-cat doctrine and even for supercarriers. And of course, all Naglfar pilots would bite their elbows missing that opportunities.


Fun idea! Only problem is that you'd have to make citadel torps immune to their splash damage, otherwise the incoming volleys would just get blown up on their way in... Lol

BTW, if anyone's wondering where that 40-50% more damage thing came from, the Phoenix needs about 30% more damage to make it roughly equal to the Moros in terms of close-range damage applied to an immobile object over a single siege cycle, accounting for loss of missile damage because of the interaction of missile flight time and siege cycles, for a target at 15 km range. Of course, there's still no real reason to fly such a Phoenix, because of the Phoenix's inability to play the blap game, so the Phoenix clearly needs a greater raw DPS increase, commensurate with its deficiencies at blapping.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#211 - 2013-03-14 20:08:07 UTC
Phoenix could take it's own unique niche if it used a large amount of BS-sized missile launchers. It wouldn't even be overpowered because torps can't even hit BS for a full damage projection.
Uncle Gagarin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#212 - 2013-03-14 22:31:04 UTC
There was a little red devil whispering something into my ear.
He said: replace citadel torps on Phoenix by bomb launchers and let that ship be only one able to use them in LS ...

That little creature is still giggling ;)


Cheers,
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#213 - 2013-03-14 23:59:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Vayn Baxtor
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:
Vayn Baxtor wrote:
//Rifter
stuff


TBH i want to see the Rifter go a Split Weapon ship, haave bonuses for projectile turrets and rockets/light missiles being a 2/2 weapon fit for the highs and either move a low slot to the mid or a mid slot to the low, but thats just me, i want a baby phoon :P



Yeah, I saw that in another thread too, and would also love to see that.

It would really give the Rifter some fangs.
I suggested to take away some HP from Rifter, so it is balanced, although it being a "brawler" with such setup could make it stand out more as Minmatar's frigate workhorse again.

Such a change would also demand the other combat frigates of its class to receive further adjustments and additions, which is imo a Win-Win.

So if one could tie

Projectile + Missile bonuses
with
Something like 4/2/4 and leave the tackling for Slasher and other ships, I think it would work out.

Though I'd love to see a 5 Lowslot variant, but this is where things go too far.


edit:

Quote:
How about giving the rifter an optimal range bonus and he fittings to use arties? ^^

I like arties =<


I like arties too, but is that a real gain for the Rifter to get out of the misery bracket? :D
I'm not denouncing your suggestion, just not sure if it would really be the right solution to go for. Especially with Thrashers being the more appropriate small arty platform.

This is somewhat also the issue about Wolf and Arties. People certainly had flown Wolf/Wolves with Arty, but there was always the aspect of "Why fly that when the Thrasher is so much better with arty + optimal range bonus". Again, I'm not against the idea ,but it would clash against Thrasher destroyer.

For what it's worth...


edit2:

Going bizarro
I think with such bonuses, we'd actually have to see some sort of 5 Highslot variant of the Rifter °-°. You know, so it can stand out as such...

quietly whispers..."CCP, heavy frigates... think about it!" :D
Anways, talking too much about Rifter.

Let's see what I or we cancome up with for the other frigates.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#214 - 2013-03-15 05:16:33 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
IMO, the only good way to fix citadel torps is to give them back their AOE damage. Not sure if it's technically feasible, especially for application in low-sec space. But if it is, that could be the worst nerf ever to slow-cat doctrine and even for supercarriers. And of course, all Naglfar pilots would bite their elbows missing that opportunities.

Fun idea! Only problem is that you'd have to make citadel torps immune to their splash damage, otherwise the incoming volleys would just get blown up on their way in... Lol

There is a good working mechanics with bombs (launched by stealth bombers). Each type of bombs has 99.5% resist to its own type of damage.

And in case you didnt know, original citadel torps were AOE weapon [prooflink]. But they were unbalanced, so CCP decided to fix that with the easiest (and the worst) kind of treatment - by removing them. But hopefully, my friends, we shall see swarms of doom torpedos again! And with that, we'd witness the Phoenix...
REBORN!
:hardstyle:
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#215 - 2013-03-15 05:20:23 UTC
Its good to see that the Naglfar is getting a fix. Sure it loses 2 hi slots, but it benefits from having 2 guns do the same as 3 on the other dreads. Meaning you don't need to buy as many guns and you use less ammo.

Now if they fixed the awful capital missiles that can be speed tanked by even a titan.

The revelation could use a buff that will put it on par with the other dreads.


What's even better is that fact that you are coming back to rebalancing ships, instead of the typical balance and forget for 2 years.
To mare
Advanced Technology
#216 - 2013-03-15 08:14:25 UTC
Tub Chil wrote:
Would it be a good idea to give rifter damage + rof bonus, so that it follows same path as rupture/cane/tempest?
Small autos track pretty well already.

it's just sad that the best frigate is one of the worst now (together with punisher and tormentor)

I think that would be a nice start, plus a bit more fitting, its damn hard to fit that high utility slot right now
Mr Hyde113
#217 - 2013-03-15 14:35:57 UTC
I like the proposed Nag change.

next™

The Rev & The Pheonix and/or Capital Lasers & Capital Missiles need some love.
Neugeniko
Insight Securities
#218 - 2013-03-15 14:52:48 UTC
Thought I'd add my 2c to fixing the rifter. My experience is mainly ab frig 1v1. The ac rifter isn't far behind blaster Merlin or Incursus. Some defence stat changes should be enough to match the blaster boats and maybe a slight cpu buff to help some rifters fit better tackle.

While I wouldn't mind a different second bonus for variety, I think it would just make balancing difficult.

Neug

Indices/Mining Simulator V6.41 UPDATED*

Daily Forge Mineral Sales Summary V1.5

Neug's Prime Industrial Real Estate V1.3
Lindsay McDermott
McDermott Industries
#219 - 2013-03-15 15:41:07 UTC
I love the fact that your making the tristan a little faster, i guess ill have to start calling mine chubby instead of fatty

Rifter does need some love, i dont fly them but they seem to be wildly unpopular now.

Back to the tristan, Is there anyway to remove the tracking bonus from it (eith for drones or guns) and give it a drone speed bonus?

I dont think it would be terribly overpowerd since its still not a drone dmg bonus. Most fits seem to use blasters anyway so the gun tracking is a non issue. I also have no idea what type effect the drone tracking bonus has, I haven't seen anything that shows it helps.

But it would put it in line with the gal drone boat chain making it a pure drone ship. tristan -> algos -> vexor -> myrm -> domi

It would also help with the 3km+ speed kiters though i dont think its going to do much.

Something like:
TRISTAN:
Gallente Frigate bonuses: +5% to Drone mwd speed and +10% to drone tracking and hitpoints per level
Slot layout: 3H, 3M, 3L; 2 turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 35 PWG, 130 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 350 / 450 / 650
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 350 / 175 s / 2
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 325 (+15) / 3.44 / 956000 (-150000) / 3.08 s (-0.48)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 40
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 40km / 600 / 5
Sensor strength: 9 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 41
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2013-03-15 16:54:21 UTC
Nice!

When will we have the industrials revamp? i'm curious to see your ideas CCP!

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system