These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#161 - 2013-03-12 18:53:04 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Bagehi wrote:
Rolling out a collection of tier 2 dreads with the alternate weapon system for each race would likely even things up with the tank preferences for cap fleets.

That would work great for Caldari and Minmatar, but Drone boat Dreads for Amarr and Gallente?


I'm sure there are ways to come up with alternatives for Amarr and Gallente that wouldn't step on the toes of carriers. I wasn't offering a fully thought out plan. I was just thinking about what changed with battleships that killed the "no one flies a shield battleship" and ushered in the current situation where both shield and armor battleship fleets are used. Artillery buff followed by a railgun buff. Dominion fixed projectiles in 2009, then Crucible fixed rails in 2011. So, a working projectile platform (this thread) and a working railgun platform on dreads would make shield dread fleets a thing again.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#162 - 2013-03-12 19:53:36 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
Oh come on. TPs pfft. It's the TDs that are appearing on so many unbonused ships. TDs on 5 midslot Hookbills or other midslot blessed frigs are pretty common. Those midslot heavy frigs have plenty of cpu to fit them and they are very (too) effective at neutering turret boats.

TDs should get a nerf tbh, and then the ships specialized for TDs get a compensatory raise on their bonus. This will be even more necessary once the TC/TE/TD effects on missiles get implemented. Otherwise TDs will become the I-win button on any ship that has a larger number of mids, and those ships with only 2 or 3 mids may be SOL.

TD are not overpowered, not more than a shield extender in fact. If any, small missiles are OP, because they have almost no counters, but that's not a problem of TD. Any kiting ship taken at close range will blow up in a few seconds, no matter how many TD he have.

The problem people have with TD is the same than with ECM or EWAR in general : they need to specificaly fit against it if they want to kill a ship using it, and that mean being weaker against ships who don't do it.

I disagree. One Optimal Disrution scripted Tracking Disruptor can completely neuter a kiting turret boat. Tracking Speed disruption can halve a brawler's DPS. It is just too damn strong. Now if you needed a bonused ship to get that kind of effectiveness, I could agree with it. But it's not a matter of bonused ships, it's every single ship can cripple a gun boat so much that there's no chance.

How many Fed Navy Comets have I faced that have a TD in the mid, and kite me at 20km? Too many. My Coercers would murder them, but then they apply the "iwin" module and turn it around entirely. And it doesn't just apply win against Coercers. My Slicers, Thrashers, Slashers, Tormentors, etc. Anything that uses turrets gets hard crippled. And it's not like I'm even facing a specific boat for TD's.

And I just picked one of the many ships I see put on a TD just because. I see Hookbills pile them on to brawl, I see Condors throw them on in their spare mids, I used to see scram range kiter Corms use them to astonishing effect (before changes). If I had one more mid, I'd put one on my Executioners.

And about your last point. I dis/agree with that. I agree in the sense that you should have to fit to counter it. But I also think that it's far worse than ECM. At least for ECM they have to rainbow their bloody Ewar unless they know exactly what they're fighting. It reminds me of the days of "spare mid? Multispectral Jammer." But the TD is just another case of that. Spare mid? TD. You hard counter ~3/4 ships in game by doing that.
Uncle Gagarin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#163 - 2013-03-12 20:05:02 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

[...] in the past CCP has expressed a desire to remove the outdated and very annoying split weapon systems on the Naglfar Dreadnaught [...]

So we're removing both the two launcher hardpoints from the Nag (and two highs), and replacing them with a fixed +50% Capital Projectile Weapon damage role bonus that puts the two-turreted Nag on roughly equal footing with its three turret peers.


Well, I'm affraid that after fixing Nag you will take long, long rest and poor Phoenix with all screwed missile system will wait till X-mas 2015.

Any chance that I'm wrong ?
Any chance that you will fix uterly broken missiles ?
Skilling tree is broken (to long skilling times to have completed all missiles - JUST ONE WEAPON BRANCH takes almost so long as three other weapon systems in total, isn't that stupid ? Long range small missiles are takeing 2 times more time than long range small turret ...)
All launchers/ammo above heavy is broken... heavy assaults are still underperforming (faction or fury and forget useless precisions)

I know that this was the plan to polish t1 frigs, but there are more important things requiring fixing.

Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#164 - 2013-03-12 20:36:58 UTC
The TD alone is only an invenience, it's the combination of TD+speed who is deadly. And I persist : a kiter, even with a TD, once caught, die, 99% of the time (because you may self destruct to save him...) Because the TD only work when the kiter have speed superiority. When caught with scram+web, there's nothing he can do, because his damage are too low compared to those of a close range brawler and he only have a paper tank.

In fact, it's even worse than that : the TD is often the only thing allowing the kiter to kite, because without it, anything with a tank and able to hit him would kill him or force him to warp off.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#165 - 2013-03-12 20:51:13 UTC
Uncle Gagarin wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:

[...] in the past CCP has expressed a desire to remove the outdated and very annoying split weapon systems on the Naglfar Dreadnaught [...]

So we're removing both the two launcher hardpoints from the Nag (and two highs), and replacing them with a fixed +50% Capital Projectile Weapon damage role bonus that puts the two-turreted Nag on roughly equal footing with its three turret peers.


Well, I'm affraid that after fixing Nag you will take long, long rest and poor Phoenix with all screwed missile system will wait till X-mas 2015.

Any chance that I'm wrong ?
Any chance that you will fix uterly broken missiles ?
Skilling tree is broken (to long skilling times to have completed all missiles - JUST ONE WEAPON BRANCH takes almost so long as three other weapon systems in total, isn't that stupid ? Long range small missiles are takeing 2 times more time than long range small turret ...)
All launchers/ammo above heavy is broken... heavy assaults are still underperforming (faction or fury and forget useless precisions)

I know that this was the plan to polish t1 frigs, but there are more important things requiring fixing.


While I'd also like to see at least a partial fix come out this time around for the Pheonix, one thing at a time. We have no idea what else will be touched on in the summer release, and they can't do all the balancing at once and have any hope of making the changes meaningful.

Also, your opinion of Heavy Assault missiles is... unique. Smile I'm fine with them as they are, but most people believe they need a healthy nerf.

All of these changes are important. Let CCP prioritize them in a way that makes sense for the Dev team workflow.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Kartoss
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#166 - 2013-03-12 20:51:27 UTC
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
For the Naglfar could you consider biasing the armor/shields towards armor and/or adding an additional low slot.

I ask this because it cannot have escaped your notice that shield capitals in pvp are on the verge of going the way of the dodo - probably already deceased in your former alma mater.


"shield capitals in pvp are on the verge of being the new meta" is more the truth. Shield Slowcats are waaay superiour to normal slowcats, the problem is as good as nobody can fly them!

For Dreads: as in siege you cant be RR'd there is no difference, just that the shield tank is actually waaay higher than the armor tank and an armor tank would force you to sacrifice DPS and drop back to 3rd best dread. So no.

I for one welcome our new 2 Turret Shield Tanking Blap Overlords.
Uncle Gagarin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#167 - 2013-03-12 21:31:48 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

Also, your opinion of Heavy Assault missiles is... unique. Smile I'm fine with them as they are, but most people believe they need a healthy nerf.


Well, I don't understand why nerf ...
They are defined as short range weapon. They are exactly that.
Attributes of one are short range huge DPS. They can do that using rage ammo (apologize for mistake in prev post).
However precisions are useless. Tested them with friends and they can't hit a t1 frigate orbiting a ship.
Something is wrong there I think ...

Ranger 1 wrote:

All of these changes are important. Let CCP prioritize them in a way that makes sense for the Dev team workflow.

Well, I agree with that. However. still if CCP has time to implement changes let they don't waste time
polishing what works well (T1 frigs and cruisers are great now with really minor problems i.e.rifter is total crap.)
They could spent it roughly correcting what badly needs fix. Well, they do that looking at Nidhogur fix.
Sad that they don't touch worst of all dreads - Phoenix. Ppl don't bother even to research BPO for it.
Doesn't it sounds like signal of really big problem with that ship ?

I think that it would be nice to have Nid "twoarmed" 50% bonus to both launchers and turrets and same for Phoenix.
That would at least temporarily fix them while still leaving a stream of capital launchers feedback and not
wipeing that type of weapon from this class of ships.

I believe you agree that this would be healthy for community and will not leave one ship far, far, far, far, far behind others.
The only reasonable use of Phoenix seems to be POS destroyer. But who needs such specialized ship fo such amount
of ISK and so big SP investment ?

Cheers,
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#168 - 2013-03-12 21:51:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Uncle Gagarin wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

Also, your opinion of Heavy Assault missiles is... unique. Smile I'm fine with them as they are, but most people believe they need a healthy nerf.


Well, I don't understand why nerf ...
They are defined as short range weapon. They are exactly that.
Attributes of one are short range huge DPS. They can do that using rage ammo (apologize for mistake in prev post).
However precisions are useless. Tested them with friends and they can't hit a t1 frigate orbiting a ship.
Something is wrong there I think ...

Ranger 1 wrote:

All of these changes are important. Let CCP prioritize them in a way that makes sense for the Dev team workflow.

Well, I agree with that. However. still if CCP has time to implement changes let they don't waste time
polishing what works well (T1 frigs and cruisers are great now with really minor problems i.e.rifter is total crap.)
They could spent it roughly correcting what badly needs fix. Well, they do that looking at Nidhogur fix.
Sad that they don't touch worst of all dreads - Phoenix. Ppl don't bother even to research BPO for it.
Doesn't it sounds like signal of really big problem with that ship ?

I think that it would be nice to have Nid "twoarmed" 50% bonus to both launchers and turrets and same for Phoenix.
That would at least temporarily fix them while still leaving a stream of capital launchers feedback and not
wipeing that type of weapon from this class of ships.

I believe you agree that this would be healthy for community and will not leave one ship far, far, far, far, far behind others.
The only reasonable use of Phoenix seems to be POS destroyer. But who needs such specialized ship fo such amount
of ISK and so big SP investment ?

Cheers,

Fairly stated, but remember I said I'd like at least a small fix for the Pheonix included this time around... although I have a feeling that any fix for the Pheonix will actually take the form of the "Meta" tweaks that will be coming presumably with this same release... quite possibly a fix for at least the capitol class missile systems.

We already know they have been putting a lot of thought into BS sized and up missile systems, the only thing we don't have yet are the details on what the nature of those tweaks will be and a time frame for implimentation.

Lets hope that they will happen this summer. We should know soon enough.

Really, my main point was simply not to bash the small tweaks they are making here and there to the T1 frigates. Iteration after a change to fine tune it is something we have been begging CCP for years to do... and these changes are fairly minor in terms of resources and time spent on them.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Grunnax Aurelius
State War Academy
Caldari State
#169 - 2013-03-12 23:08:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Grunnax Aurelius
Gypsio III wrote:
What about the Phoenix's split weapon system? It can only use a single unbonused turret - it has to jam pointless citadel launchers into the other two highslots.

ahh dude take another look at the phoenix, 4 highs with 3 launcher 1 turret, you fit a siege mod and 3 launchers, if you fit a blaster or rail on a phoenix your a tard.

CCP please dont touch my Phoenix i like the way it is :)

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread

Ouoman
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#170 - 2013-03-13 00:04:07 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:
Ouoman wrote:
How will the new Nag affect the current sov warfare meta? Aka cap blobs. Since:

a) most of null can fly alpha maels already and the skill req for dreads is being lowered to Racial BS4 there's a loooooot of people not too far off from flying an alpha nag.

b) Arty Nags with the new damage bonus and only a t2 fit with faction ammo easily put out ~100,000 damage alphas.

A Nag fleet as small as 40-50 alpha nags can hit siege and alpha a slowcat every 15 seconds at up to about 100km(70+168 for a ganky fit). Reps basically being ignored. If the hostiles escalated with supers and titans the Arty nags could theoretically blap a super or titan in 3-5 volleys. Smart target calling and target switching would play havoc on carriers trying to provide logi. Obviously it would be a war of attrition but an ArtyNag fleet could easily win the isk war.

I'm not a cap pilot so this is obviously theoretical.



Do you and the other "OMG lowering the BS requirement to 4 is going to lead to massive capital proliferation" realize what a small part of a proper capital train the BS5 skill really is? Heck it's probably one of the least painful parts since it benefits you when flying something other than a capital. Trust me it's not BS5 that's the real impediment to people getting into capitals, it's the 3-4 months of support skills particularly the jump skills.

As for me I applaud the Nag changes, sounds like I my Nag pilot might actually get to see some use in the future, even better It'll save me a few hundred million when I eventually lose it when I don't have to replace 4 capital weapons. Oh and it now joins the blap dread team.



I don't have an issue with the skills req change at all. And yes, I understand that cap support skills are a long haul, however the removal of BSV for caps removes about a month of training time for that. That's just a fact. Cap proliferation is just the way things are currently; I doubt the skill change will significantly affect that at all.

All I was pointing out was that much of null has the subcap and support skills already (due to the popularity of alpha maels for a long time) and it would be a relatively very short hop to get large numbers of pilots into arty nags, and asking if that fact could significantly affect the current null meta in the form of Alpha Nag fleets. Or will we just see more Nags used in existing dread fleets/doctrines?
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#171 - 2013-03-13 01:15:25 UTC
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:
CCP please dont touch my Phoenix i like the way it is :)


Not sure if stupid, or just really stupid.
Grunnax Aurelius
State War Academy
Caldari State
#172 - 2013-03-13 02:11:15 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:
CCP please dont touch my Phoenix i like the way it is :)


Not sure if stupid, or just really stupid.


please explain, if you think the phoenix is crap you make me lol

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=342042&find=unread

mine mi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2013-03-13 02:18:46 UTC
A variation could be to add + 2 Launcher Slots and 2 Projectile Slots ,could be a versatile ship according to the Minmatar philosophy
Ava Starfire
Khushakor Clan
#174 - 2013-03-13 02:27:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Ava Starfire
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:
Volstruis wrote:
I still think that ewar needs to be looked at. Kiting TD meta is a bit broken, especially in t1 frigate land.


Yup. The main problems with ewar atm are

1) It costs too little cap. Like WAY too little cap.

2) Scripts are too powerful. They should be -75/+50 instead of -100/+100

3) They are too easy to fit

Silly ideas. EWAR is already nearly useless on unbonused hull and besides web, scram and TP, CPU cost is insane.


Seriously?

2 TDs on condors are "nearly useless"? Three RSDs on the hookbill? What, do you want them to be able to be as horribly annoying as they are now with only 1 of these modules fitted?

Seriously?

Michael hit at the core of the issue here; ewar, and its ability to be run perpetually, at the frig level. Why the hell can the condor run MWD, point, plus two TDs, forever, exactly?

If CPU cost is so "insane", how come so many ships seem to fit and run them with no problems? Hookbills and Condors are of course the worst offenders here, but any form of ewar is crippling at the frigate level, and that just compounds the issue of more midslot ships being nearly universally better than ships with less mids. Add to this the fact that shield tanks are simply faster than armor tanks, and that shield tanks naturally work better with more mids (ofc) and the problem grows even more noticeable.

A ship with a 3/4/2 layout is simply better than a ship with a 3/2/4 layout (edit here, AT THE T1 FRIG LEVEL!) Period. With so many hulls being revamped to be useful, it only grows harder to balance them correctly. It almost feels like CCP should try to correctly balance 1 or 2 frigs per race and get them actually working right BEFORE trying to add or change more.

The Rifter could use some love, but of course, I am biased here; I fly Minmatar. The Rifter is not terrible, but it isnt exactly good. I will leave discussion of "what it needs" for people not quite so attached to it, I think.

"There is no strength in numbers; have no such misconception." -Jayka Vofur, "Warfare in the North"

Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#175 - 2013-03-13 04:59:44 UTC
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:
Paikis wrote:
Grunnax Aurelius wrote:
CCP please dont touch my Phoenix i like the way it is :)


Not sure if stupid, or just really stupid.


please explain, if you think the phoenix is crap you make me lol


The Phoenix is rubbish. Mostly because of capital missiles. If capital missiles weren't about as useful as **** on a soccer ball, the Phoenix might be useful. As it stands the Phoenix can only apply any of its (kinetic restricted) damage to POSes or stationary capitals. This is not weakness suffered by any of the gun dreads.

If all you want to do is shoot POSes that have a large kinetic hole, then sure, it's great.

Anyone who thinks the Phoenix is useful hasn't used any of the other 3 dreads (Nag was crap, but not AS crap).
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#176 - 2013-03-13 05:00:24 UTC
Quote:
The Rifter could use some love, but of course, I am biased here; I fly Minmatar. The Rifter is not terrible, but it isnt exactly good. I will leave discussion of "what it needs" for people not quite so attached to it, I think.



I don't know if that +50armor was what Fozzie indirectly announced some few months ago about "Something big coming for Rifter". I know balance changes need to come slow but I think that is way too slow.

I know I've been rambling for quite some time on this, I think it is safe to say that the Slasher and other frigs surpass the Rifter in various fields - yes yes, bit more fitting room here and there, but that is nothing really.

The only thing I just don't know if we (or I) should re-reiterate all the stuff again here, of that had been said in various threads before - or if CCP even wants to hear our ongoing lamentations about Rifter :D. Not sure if anybody even wants to hear suggestions or anything.

But just seeing that +50 simply hits me with that brainfart of having Rifter, Punisher, Tristan and Merlin be cloned into a seperate real "Heavy Frigate" where they have more hp and whatever is missing, so they stand out more vs other frigates. Oh well.

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

Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#177 - 2013-03-13 05:35:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinzor Aumer
@ Fozzie
Have you considered the following option on Naglfar?

4 turrets
5% damage bonus
no ROF bonus

That would really be the only viable long-range dread, Alpha-Nag.
Its relatively weak tank wouldnt matter that much as a consequence. In fact, you could apply the same approach (longer range) for Nidhoggur, but that's the whole other story.
Why 4, not 3 with more bonus? Well, because 1) easier to redesign the exterior, 2) fitting 4 arty is (or should be) much harder than 4 AC, so when choosing the alpha, the tank fits no more, 3) versatility! you can sacrifice 1 high slot for smartbomb, cyno or whatever without loosing too much DPS. And yes, if people start fitting blasters on that - you know something is wrong.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#178 - 2013-03-13 08:20:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Paikis wrote:

If all you want to do is shoot POSes that have a large kinetic hole, then sure, it's great.


TBH, the Phoenix isn't even any good at hitting POS. It's way outdamaged by the Moros and the future Naglfar, with the former doing also high-kinetic damage and the latter having mostly-selectable damage types too - and neither losing applied DPS because of missile flight times during siege cycles. The only thing the Phoenix has going for it is alpha, which isn't really very useable, and, er, it doesn't need to move about the POS as much when shooting mods, if for some reason you have haven't just used supercaps to disable the defences.

To make the Phoenix a useful dreadnought while retaining missiles you need to give it an advantage at hitting POS and capital commensurate with its inferiority at the blap game. This probably means something like a 50% damage increase! This is an unrealistic boost and will not happen.
Sutha Moliko
Giza'Msafara
#179 - 2013-03-13 08:28:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Sutha Moliko
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame.

About the Rifter and the Jaguar (because he suffers the same fate by being the king of the hill) :
They are lacklusters atm because of the others frigates have been buff. But most important, CCP done a good job with blaster. Now in close/point range blaster dominate, out of scram range laser/missile dominate, while the AC are remaining in between.
I suggest for the parts of the metagame
- a reduction in reload time to 5 second for projectile weapons.

The damage selection of projectiles will mean something during a fight : EMP to Fusion or Barrage to Phased while closing range for exemple.

The reason why the Slasher can perform well is because of his speed, agility and the 4 mid slots for Ewar while having the same bonus than the Rifter. Hence, the Rifter and the breacher could benefits from a slight increase in agility and speed as the gallente did.

Side notes :
You really need to polish the Assault Frigates, the Jaguar especially lack of speed, agility and capacitor.
You should also adjust the signature radius Interdictors. Thing you forgot when you buffed the T1 destroyers and reduced their signature radius.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2013-03-13 09:03:23 UTC
Nice to see that Naglfar will be useful. I wish you would fix Phoenix too because it's a hardly can be called a Dreadnought.

I'm a bit concerned that Naglfar might become overpowered after this change. Compared to other dreads (Revelation/Moros) it will be only one with following distinctive advantages:

1. Selectable damage type. It's impossible to fortify a PoS against it's damage.
2. Cap-free weapon. Being able to use jump drive right after a siege cycle is not a thing to ignore.

With a changes to capital ships skill requirements it won't take much time to reassign dread pilots from one dread to another. Those Naglfare changes could possibly change the way Drednoughts are used.