These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#921 - 2014-02-27 20:56:59 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
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?


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.


I am sure the idea is to trial a ship bonus that reduces drone numbers. So events like HED-GP Do not happen in the future. Reducing drones has to be part of the game moving forward because they have once again become the largest strain on the server during fleet flights (thanks CFC.)

There is nothing wrong with giving this ship a massive drone bonus and reducing the number of drones it can field. Unless someone wants to willingly cause server lag to force CCP to make a kneejerk change to a decade old system that was never an issue before.



CCP could solve the drone lag issue the same way turret lag is dealt with; by grouping the drones.

This is something we tested using the old Drakefleet when TiDi was introduced. Firing the missiles ungrouped caused far more lag than grouped missiles because the server had to calculate 7 missiles hits instead of 1.

Drones can be grouped for management purposes in the drone window, but the server still calculates them individually. Using ship balance to fix some back end server code issue is not something we should be encouraging CCP to do. In the long run, it will mean all the ships get dumbed down by the balancing team rather than fixing the underlying issues in the server. We'll end up with ships that all have 1 gun, 1 defense mod, and only fly in straight lines because 'fix lag'.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#922 - 2014-02-27 20:59:20 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:

CCP could solve the drone lag issue the same way turret lag is dealt with; by grouping the drones.

This is something we tested using the old Drakefleet when TiDi was introduced. Firing the missiles ungrouped caused far more lag than grouped missiles because the server had to calculate 7 missiles hits instead of 1.

Drones can be grouped for management purposes in the drone window, but the server still calculates them individually. Using ship balance to fix some back end server code issue is not something we should be encouraging CCP to do. In the long run, it will mean all the ships get dumbed down by the balancing team rather than fixing the underlying issues in the server. We'll end up with ships that all have 1 gun, 1 defense mod, and only fly in straight lines because 'fix lag'.

As I understand missile grouping works differently than turret grouping. Also even without lag being a factor the drone idea it still novel and has advantages.
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#923 - 2014-02-27 21:15:06 UTC
I don't very much hate the idea that all turrets should be forcefully grouped(when they are the same turrets of course), and grouping 5-10 drones into 2-4 might not be a bad idea as well, and it's very likely to reduce the server lag significantly, assuming that the drone consumes similar amount of resource as a ship, for some aspects.

However, the lag issue, though affects a large amount of players at some points of time, is not significant to most of the players for the most of the time. Making changes that will significantly affect game play for all the times to fix a very occasional issue just sounds crazy.

I don't know how things can work, if it's possible to forcefully group drones/turrets when the tidi is triggered? That will be an ideal solution.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#924 - 2014-02-27 21:19:08 UTC
Kogh Ayon wrote:
I don't very much hate the idea that all turrets should be forcefully grouped(when they are the same turrets of course), and grouping 5-10 drones into 2-4 might not be a bad idea as well, and it's very likely to reduce the server lag significantly, assuming that the drone consumes similar amount of resource as a ship, for some aspects.

However, the lag issue, though affects a large amount of players at some points of time, is not significant to most of the players for the most of the time. Making changes that will significantly affect game play for all the times to fix a very occasional issue just sounds crazy.

I don't know how things can work, if it's possible to forcefully group drones/turrets when the tidi is triggered? That will be an ideal solution.

Considering we are dealing with pirate ships, which aren't terribly likely to be fielded in the numbers present in large fleets, I'm not entirely convinced this is just a lag fix, but rather an idea to provide some unique functionality.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#925 - 2014-02-27 21:26:17 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
[quote=Shepard Wong Ogeko]
Also even without lag being a factor the drone idea it still novel and has advantages.


I want ships that are useful.

We had ships that were 'novel' with split weapons and other weird bonuses. You can't deny that it made the ships different. CCP was doing a good job of moving away from 'novel' and more towards 'useful'.


Novel is a dumb metric to aim for. Anyone can make a ship novel by giving it crazy stats. That doesn't mean it will be useful or balanced. With the current stats, a Worm might be novel, but a Harpy will be better and cheaper.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#926 - 2014-02-27 21:35:16 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
[quote=Shepard Wong Ogeko]
Also even without lag being a factor the drone idea it still novel and has advantages.


I want ships that are useful.

We had ships that were 'novel' with split weapons and other weird bonuses. You can't deny that it made the ships different. CCP was doing a good job of moving away from 'novel' and more towards 'useful'.


Novel is a dumb metric to aim for. Anyone can make a ship novel by giving it crazy stats. That doesn't mean it will be useful or balanced. With the current stats, a Worm might be novel, but a Harpy will be better and cheaper.

And that's a valid critique if it stops at novel, but it didn't. The problem seems to be treating novel and useful as mutually exclusive terms. Honestly the worm was buffed very strongly. If after a 60% drone damage increase and a potential 50% missile damage increase you can't beat a Harpy with it, that means the tristan/astero/current worm/iskur and likely even algos/dragoon are probably dead right along beside it and small drone platforms need to be abandoned since the new worm will be the strongest light drone platform of the bunch.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#927 - 2014-02-27 22:02:27 UTC
Meandering Milieu wrote:
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. >.>


It never occurred to me for a moment to use a navy domi for pve.

Neutrons and ogres seem appropriate to me for pvp brawler.

When balancing these ships I assume that CCP don't consider pve use at all. They are warships.

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".
Anika Ataru
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#928 - 2014-02-27 22:08:02 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
If they keep the relative bonus up the ship lines, the bonus for Gila and Rattlesnake should be 500% on 2 drones.

Current Worm: 5 Effective
Future Worm: 8 Effective (160% of Current)

Current Gila: 7.5 Effective
Future Gila: 12 Effective (160% of Current)

This assumes that they choose not to toss the extra damage into the launchers or something. I won't say the proposed changes to the Worm have no bearing on the rest of the shipline, but assuming that they are going to keep the same bonus from level to level despite it being a pretty poor bonus as it moves up the levels is fairly silly.

Honestly, though I hate to see it happen, I would imagine that as they move up the bonus will be restricted to size. The thought of a Gila or Rattlesnake putting out the equivalent of 30 light drones with each drone having the HP of a light tanked cruiser seems...hurtful. This is definitely a case of wait and see.

Are you serious? Current Worm is not bonused drone boat, Gila is. Suggesting it should get same % increase in effective drones is just silly. It "should" get same 8 effective drones at best. 7,5 is standard for bonused drone boats bar the frigs, 12 would be ridiculously OP.


(Personally, I don't like the idea about Guristas having best drone boats in general tbh, as they are still Caldari, but I guess CCP already abandoned concept of Gallente being "drone masters" with shifting Amarr towards them, so I must live with that.)
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#929 - 2014-02-27 22:11:26 UTC
Anika Ataru wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
If they keep the relative bonus up the ship lines, the bonus for Gila and Rattlesnake should be 500% on 2 drones.

Current Worm: 5 Effective
Future Worm: 8 Effective (160% of Current)

Current Gila: 7.5 Effective
Future Gila: 12 Effective (160% of Current)

This assumes that they choose not to toss the extra damage into the launchers or something. I won't say the proposed changes to the Worm have no bearing on the rest of the shipline, but assuming that they are going to keep the same bonus from level to level despite it being a pretty poor bonus as it moves up the levels is fairly silly.

Honestly, though I hate to see it happen, I would imagine that as they move up the bonus will be restricted to size. The thought of a Gila or Rattlesnake putting out the equivalent of 30 light drones with each drone having the HP of a light tanked cruiser seems...hurtful. This is definitely a case of wait and see.

Are you serious? Current Worm is not bonused drone boat, Gila is. Suggesting it should get same % increase in effective drones is just silly. It "should" get same 8 effective drones at best. 7,5 is standard for bonused drone boats bar the frigs, 12 would be ridiculously OP.


(Personally, I don't like the idea about Guristas having best drone boats in general tbh, as they are still Caldari, but I guess CCP already abandoned concept of Gallente being "drone masters" with shifting Amarr towards them, so I must live with that.)

Why would it get 8 at best? That makes no sense considering a class with no bonuses sees the worm getting a proposed 60% buff. By your logic even a typical 10%/lvl bonus is too much for the worm.
Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#930 - 2014-02-27 22:24:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Kapytul Gaynez
Figuring out if the Cruors mis-matched bonuses can work together or not is really the only major issue I see with the proposed changes.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#931 - 2014-02-27 22:26:17 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Why would it get 8 at best? That makes no sense considering a class with no bonuses sees the worm getting a proposed 60% buff. By your logic even a typical 10%/lvl bonus is too much for the worm.


Because the worm is awful and the gila and rattle are mostly ok. So the worm gets a comparatively bigger buff. There's nothing wrong with the worm being the only bonused frigate. All the other drone frigates have decent secondary weapon systems.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#932 - 2014-02-27 22:34:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Batelle wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Why would it get 8 at best? That makes no sense considering a class with no bonuses sees the worm getting a proposed 60% buff. By your logic even a typical 10%/lvl bonus is too much for the worm.


Because the worm is awful and the gila and rattle are mostly ok. So the worm gets a comparatively bigger buff. There's nothing wrong with the worm being the only bonused frigate. All the other drone frigates have decent secondary weapon systems.

No, the RS and Gila are somewhat lackluster in their drone capabilities at the moment compared to Gallente offerings. Granted the combination of themes is unigue, but that doesn't seem to be a strong draw looking at RS prices vs other pirate BS's.

Additionally the secondary weapon of the worm just got a buff as well. I'm not sure how you would consider the astero's laser capabilities decent especially when in one of it's primary envisioned functions (cloaky prober) it can't even fit them. The tristans hybrid capabilities are lackluster as well.

Edit: If by others you mean the ishkur, sure, but 1 of 3 doesn't really qualify your statement.
Blood Ruin
Neurotoxin Control
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#933 - 2014-02-27 22:39:33 UTC
As someone who primarily flies frigates, I am extremely excited for the succubus changes. I feel like the AB changes will make it a competitive piece of the solo pvp meta. I also see vast possibilities for the cruor for fleet support and will be much more viable for solo.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#934 - 2014-02-27 23:09:04 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Novel is a dumb metric to aim for. Anyone can make a ship novel by giving it crazy stats. That doesn't mean it will be useful or balanced. With the current stats, a Worm might be novel, but a Harpy will be better and cheaper.

And that's a valid critique if it stops at novel, but it didn't. The problem seems to be treating novel and useful as mutually exclusive terms. Honestly the worm was buffed very strongly. If after a 60% drone damage increase and a potential 50% missile damage increase you can't beat a Harpy with it, that means the tristan/astero/current worm/iskur and likely even algos/dragoon are probably dead right along beside it and small drone platforms need to be abandoned since the new worm will be the strongest light drone platform of the bunch.[/quote]

But they could just give the Worm the regular 10%/level damage bonus with 5 drones and get pretty close to this oddball flat 300% with 2 drones. And even with the flat bonus, it still doesn't have the range/tracking/velocity bonuses that make the current Gallente drone boats so good.

It is novel for the sake of being novel, and ignores that supporting bonuses that make the Gallente drone boats outshine the Guristas ships by such a noticeable margin.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#935 - 2014-02-27 23:15:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:

Novel is a dumb metric to aim for. Anyone can make a ship novel by giving it crazy stats. That doesn't mean it will be useful or balanced. With the current stats, a Worm might be novel, but a Harpy will be better and cheaper.

And that's a valid critique if it stops at novel, but it didn't. The problem seems to be treating novel and useful as mutually exclusive terms. Honestly the worm was buffed very strongly. If after a 60% drone damage increase and a potential 50% missile damage increase you can't beat a Harpy with it, that means the tristan/astero/current worm/iskur and likely even algos/dragoon are probably dead right along beside it and small drone platforms need to be abandoned since the new worm will be the strongest light drone platform of the bunch.


But they could just give the Worm the regular 10%/level damage bonus with 5 drones and get pretty close to this oddball flat 300% with 2 drones. And even with the flat bonus, it still doesn't have the range/tracking/velocity bonuses that make the current Gallente drone boats so good.

It is novel for the sake of being novel, and ignores that supporting bonuses that make the Gallente drone boats outshine the Guristas ships by such a noticeable margin.

The draw for the worm is it's increased potential damage output with drones which is 60% higher than it's competitors. The 8 effective drone number won't work for it's larger brethren, but a damage bonus of considerable level gives some point for the series separate from just making shield ishtars and domis.

Let me seriously just ask, do you really think the cure all for the Guristas line is just to be a more expensive Gallente line?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#936 - 2014-02-28 00:12:00 UTC
12 effective sentry/heavy drones might be OP for the Gila, but not the Rattlesnake.

Pirate Battleships get somewhere around 15 effective turrets. Each sentry is roughly the equivalent to a turret, and if you have 12 drones you still need at least the 4 launchers. If it's forced to use heavies instead it should get a little extra just for forcing us to watch paint dry between targets.
Markku Laaksonen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#937 - 2014-02-28 00:12:36 UTC
Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
Figuring out if the Cruors mis-matched bonuses can work together or not is really the only major issue I see with the proposed changes.


How are they mismatched? It's a web range and neut/old NOS amount bonus. I see that as working to snag something from an extended web range to be able to get in close and shut them down with cap warfare.

How do you see them?

DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/

EVE Buddy Invite - https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=047203f1-4124-42a1-b36f-39ca8ae5d6e2&action=buddy
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#938 - 2014-02-28 00:14:47 UTC
Markku Laaksonen wrote:
Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
Figuring out if the Cruors mis-matched bonuses can work together or not is really the only major issue I see with the proposed changes.


How are they mismatched? It's a web range and neut/old NOS amount bonus. I see that as working to snag something from an extended web range to be able to get in close and shut them down with cap warfare.

How do you see them?



The range on NOS is too small. You web, close in, get webbed, never get close enough to NOS, and eventually die.
Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#939 - 2014-02-28 00:39:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Kapytul Gaynez
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Markku Laaksonen wrote:
Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
Figuring out if the Cruors mis-matched bonuses can work together or not is really the only major issue I see with the proposed changes.


How are they mismatched? It's a web range and neut/old NOS amount bonus. I see that as working to snag something from an extended web range to be able to get in close and shut them down with cap warfare.

How do you see them?



The range on NOS is too small. You web, close in, get webbed, never get close enough to NOS, and eventually die.



^^This^^

If it could fit 2x webs or if the Nuet bonus was range I could see them working together but the Cruor is not a fast ship, can't dual prop, can't dual web. The bonuses don't mix which could work out alright, idk but I think that finding out how it will play is the largest issue with the proposed changes. The other ships might end up needing a little tweaking here and there but the Cruor seems like the only one that might need a bonus changed.
Buckethead bot
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#940 - 2014-02-28 00:40:34 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Markku Laaksonen wrote:
Kapytul Gaynez wrote:
Figuring out if the Cruors mis-matched bonuses can work together or not is really the only major issue I see with the proposed changes.


How are they mismatched? It's a web range and neut/old NOS amount bonus. I see that as working to snag something from an extended web range to be able to get in close and shut them down with cap warfare.

How do you see them?



The range on NOS is too small. You web, close in, get webbed, never get close enough to NOS, and eventually die.


not to mention you are superass slow . 90% web was better.
Cruor needs aditional low slot