These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Pirate Faction Frigates

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#841 - 2014-02-27 02:29:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Silivar Karkun
something worth to mention is that pirate ships should reflect the doctrines of their NPC versions, never understood why they dont have bonuses for EWAR as the rats do:

-Sanshas:

caldari bonus: tracking disruptors

amarr bonus: laser tracking

role bonus: laser damage

-Blood Raiders:

minmatar bonus: web bonus

amarr bonus: energy drain systems

role bonus: laser damage

-Serpentis:

gallente bonus: sensor dampening

minmatar bonus: hybrid falloff

role bonus: hybrid damage

-Guristas:

gallente bonus: drones

caldari bonus: ECM

role bonus: drones or missiles

-Angels:

minmatar bonus: target painting

gallente bonus: projectile falloff

role bonus: projectile damage

of course this needs to be linked to a balance of EWAR modules cuz there seems to be an issue with the current performance of them.......
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#842 - 2014-02-27 02:32:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mournful Conciousness
Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
ECM bonus would give us a 3rd ECM BS... Do we really need a third?


The only remotely comparable battleship would be the Widow, which requires a great deal of training and does not offer the longevity or damage potential of an equivalent rattlesnake.

The scopion has a very different role - ECM at extreme range, while the rattlesnake lends itself to brawling.

I think the rattlesnake would be a more favourable choice, unless you happened to need the ability to bridge covops ships.

ECM would give it a way to control the engagement while being strong enough to stay if it wished.

Perhaps a bonus to ECM burst only (range and strength) - that would be reasonable, allowing the ship to punch above its weight at the vanguard of a small to medium fleet.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#843 - 2014-02-27 02:39:35 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
ECM bonus would give us a 3rd ECM BS... Do we really need a third?


The only remotely comparable battleship would be the Widow, which requires a great deal of training and does not offer the longevity or damage potential of an equivalent rattlesnake.

The scopion has a very different role - ECM at extreme range, while the rattlesnake lends itself to brawling.

I think the rattlesnake would be a more favourable choice, unless you happened to need the ability to bridge covops ships.

ECM would give it a way to control the engagement while being strong enough to stay if it wished.

Perhaps a bonus to ECM burst only (range and strength) - that would be reasonable, allowing the ship to punch above its weight at the vanguard of a small to medium fleet.

Unlike webs or the machs ability to pursue it still leaves the RS without any enhanced ability to actually capture and hold a target. There is still a lack of need to commit. It could easily make it a more annoying target, but it plays more defensively than offensively unless it also gives up drone damage to augment tackle. In a fleet role maybe, but if the gang size/type dictates either high mobility or longer ranges the RS is still obsoleted by less expensive choices.
Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#844 - 2014-02-27 02:42:55 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
ECM bonus would give us a 3rd ECM BS... Do we really need a third?


The only remotely comparable battleship would be the Widow, which requires a great deal of training and does not offer the longevity or damage potential of an equivalent rattlesnake.

The scopion has a very different role - ECM at extreme range, while the rattlesnake lends itself to brawling.

I think the rattlesnake would be a more favourable choice, unless you happened to need the ability to bridge covops ships.

ECM would give it a way to control the engagement while being strong enough to stay if it wished.

Perhaps a bonus to ECM burst only (range and strength) - that would be reasonable, allowing the ship to punch above its weight at the vanguard of a small to medium fleet.



I think that eats into the widow's niche pretty substantially and I don't think there is enough clamor for ecm BS's to warrant 3 small variants. I could be alone in that line of thought though. Where I am not alone is thinking that 3x new ECM ships would too much and basically ruin most low-sec fights that are already at about 50/50 shot of having a falcon involved.
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#845 - 2014-02-27 03:06:57 UTC
Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
ECM bonus would give us a 3rd ECM BS... Do we really need a third?


The only remotely comparable battleship would be the Widow, which requires a great deal of training and does not offer the longevity or damage potential of an equivalent rattlesnake.

The scopion has a very different role - ECM at extreme range, while the rattlesnake lends itself to brawling.

I think the rattlesnake would be a more favourable choice, unless you happened to need the ability to bridge covops ships.

ECM would give it a way to control the engagement while being strong enough to stay if it wished.

Perhaps a bonus to ECM burst only (range and strength) - that would be reasonable, allowing the ship to punch above its weight at the vanguard of a small to medium fleet.



I think that eats into the widow's niche pretty substantially and I don't think there is enough clamor for ecm BS's to warrant 3 small variants. I could be alone in that line of thought though. Where I am not alone is thinking that 3x new ECM ships would too much and basically ruin most low-sec fights that are already at about 50/50 shot of having a falcon involved.


that is more of the situation of the EWAR right now, until CCP balances EWAR as a whole then its an option that cannot be taken in account right now......
stoicfaux
#846 - 2014-02-27 04:00:28 UTC
Guristas drone buffs should focus on the EW drones, specifically ECM.

I, for one, welcome our ECM (and TP, Sensor Damping, and Tracking Disrupting) sentry drones.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#847 - 2014-02-27 04:10:09 UTC
Sansha's should get reactive lasers which adjust their damage to their target's weakest resist over time. This would give them a Caldari trait (somewhat selectable damage) and make them very unique and amazing at something.

Oh god.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#848 - 2014-02-27 04:19:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
I am slightly confused as to why someone would hate the bonus given to the Worm based on what might be done to the Rattlesnake, at least with that much vehemence.

The Worm currently puts out 5 effective drones. The change gets it 8 by putting out 2 drones, each with as much or more HP than the hull itself.

Rise already stated its not limited to a 300% bonus, and if that trend is carried foward the Rattlesnake may see 2 drones worth 6 effective drones, each with the HP of the hull, plus bonused launchers.

So what is wrong with the Worm?
Fabulous Rod
Darkfall Corp
#849 - 2014-02-27 04:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Fabulous Rod
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Fabulous Rod wrote:

Maybe if its torpedo viability weren't getting so significantly nerfed. I've never had a problem managing my drones and sentries. Guristas are getting **** on for .5 more of a drone and nich application of DPS.

Why do they need to remove anything from Guristas? Pull your heads out of your assholes, devs.

Did you just discount a 50% damage increase for 2 of 4 damage types for the very weapon you are complaining about as a "nich application of DPS?"


if you think the rattlesnake is going to get the same 50% bonus to thermal and kinetic damage, you would be dreaming.


if in the unlikely event it does get a bonus like that it is going to be paying in some other way that will gimp its overall viability, devs will make sure of that.

There is no reason to take any of the current bonuses away from from the rattlesnake or any Guristas ships.
Sinooko
Tharumec
Gespenster Kompanie
#850 - 2014-02-27 04:50:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Sinooko
I looked into the Cruor in faction warfare but ultimately decided against it because of how poorly it would work in solo and fleet fights.

In solo fights it is almost worthless when engaging frigates specialized in missiles, projectiles, and drones. One could argue that the NOS and Neuts would knock out their MWD and Reppers, but in the fast and vicious combat that is frigate PvP it didn't have the lasting power to wait for the enemy's cap to empty out.

In fleet fights it is a highly expensive ship that has to get really close to use its abilities. In other words, always the primary! Coupled with the fact that NOS and Neuts take time to be effective, it made the Cruor a poor option.

I recommend a few possible, possibly nutty options.
1. Extend the effective range of the ship allowing it to kite while using its abilities.
2. Make the NOS and Neuts burst heavily as soon as the module is activated with a looooong cycle time to offset that massive advantage.
3. Make it a true vampire by making it a shield tank and adding a shield vampire bonus to NOS so it effectively steals it's targets health.

All your cap are belong to me!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#851 - 2014-02-27 04:52:32 UTC
Fabulous Rod wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Fabulous Rod wrote:

Maybe if its torpedo viability weren't getting so significantly nerfed. I've never had a problem managing my drones and sentries. Guristas are getting **** on for .5 more of a drone and nich application of DPS.

Why do they need to remove anything from Guristas? Pull your heads out of your assholes, devs.

Did you just discount a 50% damage increase for 2 of 4 damage types for the very weapon you are complaining about as a "nich application of DPS?"


if you think the rattlesnake is going to get the same 50% bonus to thermal and kinetic damage, you would be dreaming.

I see no reason why it wouldn't, We have ships with low numbers of weapons hardpoints and strong bonuses already, the Hyperion being one example. Granted I have no way of knowing if that is the plan, but there is no logical reason to assume it can't happen.
Mario Putzo
#852 - 2014-02-27 04:53:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Fabulous Rod wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Fabulous Rod wrote:

Maybe if its torpedo viability weren't getting so significantly nerfed. I've never had a problem managing my drones and sentries. Guristas are getting **** on for .5 more of a drone and nich application of DPS.

Why do they need to remove anything from Guristas? Pull your heads out of your assholes, devs.

Did you just discount a 50% damage increase for 2 of 4 damage types for the very weapon you are complaining about as a "nich application of DPS?"


if you think the rattlesnake is going to get the same 50% bonus to thermal and kinetic damage, you would be dreaming.



Why wouldn't it? Close range brawler with Torps. Why not?
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#853 - 2014-02-27 04:55:26 UTC
Sinooko wrote:
In solo fights it is almost worthless when engaging frigates specialized in missiles, projectiles, and drones. One could argue that the NOS and Neuts would knock out their MWD and Reppers, but in the fast and vicious combat that is frigate PvP it didn't have the lasting power to wait for the enemy's cap to empty out.

How many neuts is that with?

Quote:
In fleet fights it is a highly expensive ship that has to get really close to use its abilities.

I'm not really sure if getting into range to use the neut is the best way to fly it. I'm kinda thinking the idea is to keep people outside of your neut range.

Oh god.
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#854 - 2014-02-27 06:25:22 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

  • We need a missile based pirate faction - yes! We didn't want to use an existing faction for this for a few different reasons (Imagine the rage if Angel turned into missiles or Guristas just became Caldari), but we would like to address it as soon as possible. I don't know when that will be, but it won't be never.

    • There's always EOM's.
    https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Equilibrium_of_Mankind

    EOM uses alot of missiles and has awesome looking ships, maybe you can do something with it.
    Shepard Wong Ogeko
    Native Freshfood
    Minmatar Republic
    #855 - 2014-02-27 06:40:49 UTC
    Mike Voidstar wrote:
    I am slightly confused as to why someone would hate the bonus given to the Worm based on what might be done to the Rattlesnake, at least with that much vehemence.

    The Worm currently puts out 5 effective drones. The change gets it 8 by putting out 2 drones, each with as much or more HP than the hull itself.

    Rise already stated its not limited to a 300% bonus, and if that trend is carried foward the Rattlesnake may see 2 drones worth 6 effective drones, each with the HP of the hull, plus bonused launchers.

    So what is wrong with the Worm?



    As others have already pointed out, the Guristas are already "unique" in being shield tanked drone boats. All they really need is there drone bonuses changed to be more in line with the recent changes to the Gallente ships. Like the tracking, range, and velocity bonuses that have been added.

    Give the worm the regular 10% to damage and you get an effective 7.5 drones any way. The fixed 300% for an effective 8 drones is not that impressive. Especially when you factor in the other Gallente bonuses that allow drones to apply damage sooner (velocity) and land more wrecking shots (tracking). The drones being super tanky is not impressive when drones are pretty much disposable and are more often abandoned than destroyed.

    If anything on the Guristas ships should be given such a complete over haul, it would be the missile bonuses. I'll admit that I'm biased. I use all the Guristas ships and _never_ fit any missiles on them. Split weapons suck, and CCP did a good job of sticking to that fact when rebalancing the T1 ships. Guristas can stay unique with the shield resists for defense, drones for damage, and the hull bonus should go to some other utility like ECM or scram range or remote reps.
    Tego lingnome
    S0utherN Comfort
    #856 - 2014-02-27 06:46:47 UTC
    The change to the gurristas ships is a horrid idea. yes they overlap the domi and ishtar, but being shield ships they work well for those of us who like those fits. where does this leave the shield drone user? armor has 2 incredible BS platforms for the job, SOE, and the domi. what about the caldari who like a little drone play?
    Mario Putzo
    #857 - 2014-02-27 07:02:19 UTC
    Tego lingnome wrote:
    The change to the gurristas ships is a horrid idea. yes they overlap the domi and ishtar, but being shield ships they work well for those of us who like those fits. where does this leave the shield drone user? armor has 2 incredible BS platforms for the job, SOE, and the domi. what about the caldari who like a little drone play?


    Ya because Shield tanked ships can never make use of mods like Drone Damage Amps or BCU's to a greater extent than Armor ships.
    Donedy
    Lulzsec Space
    #858 - 2014-02-27 08:15:06 UTC
    Why nerfing the cap/buffer daredevil?

    It doesnt need it.
    Meandering Milieu
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #859 - 2014-02-27 08:19:57 UTC
    Mournful Conciousness wrote:


    Mr Fabulous actually has good point (if poorly communicated). The navy dominix is a pure DPS play using drones and guns. Its damage output is over 1000dps before any implants or damage mods, and yet it sells for only 500 million or so - not far from the current rattlesnake's price.


    Gotta dispute this just a tad, as a navy domi pilot.

    My skills aren't perfect, but looking in EFT, with all lvl V skills, A domi with a full rack of 425mm rails, javelin ammo, and garde IIs, pulls around 800dps. 795 with cal navy AM, 810 with dread guristas AM.

    The only way you can get 1000dps out of the stock navy domi without dmg mods and implants, is to fit neutron blasters and void. Cal Navy and Dread Guristas AM still fall short of the 1000dps mark. The tracking comps needed to make this viable for most pve force you into armor tanking it, which kills your tank compared to shields, and straps the powergrid to near breaking point. This makes it impossible to really fit an AB. Further, even with 3 tracking comps you need to use null ammo, which brings you below that 1k base dps you were talking about.

    Basically the only time I can see a 1000 base dps navy domi ever existing is as a buffer tanked bait ship, because otherwise there is no scenario for it that makes sense. The 1200-1400 dps navy domi I've seen most people use, for missioning/pve, requires almost all lows go to damage mods, a shield tank, and therefor fewer omnis or tracking comps, which force your hand into different ammos/drones for anything outside of 50km (even with two fed navy tracking links from my old domi, my gardes miss at 50km often. After the omni changes I switched back to T2) . This brings your dps lower again despite your efforts.

    On paper at least, I pull roughly 1250dps at 45km. After that I have to switch ammo, bringing me to about 1050dps, even with a full rack of damage mods. Even with all skills at lvl V, the changing ammo required for distance has a similar decline.

    This all said I have nothing against the rattlesnake, and think it needs love. I just dislike the idea of people considering the domi, navy or otherwise, to be an insanely powerful wtfbbqpwn ship out of stock, with no enhancement mods or sacrifices necessary to pull good dps. The truth is for good dps and tank you have to sacrifice utility ( midslots) and for good utility you have to sacrifice dps and tank (lowslots, shield to armor. ) This is actually kind of balanced.

    Sorry for ranting. >.>
    Gypsio III
    Questionable Ethics.
    Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
    #860 - 2014-02-27 08:58:27 UTC
    IMO the only way to make a Guristas ECM bonus desirable is to give it a huge ECM strength bonus, then limit the ship to a single ECM mod.

    If you allowed it to fit any number of ECM mods, then the huge strength bonus would just be OP, so you'd have to have a weaker one, at which point you've just recreated any other ECM boat, which is a total waste of everyone's time.

    Or give it bonuses to ECM Bursts. FOF-Rattler fleets with bastioned/triaged drone bunnies! \o/