These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ayma Mess
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#941 - 2014-02-28 00:43:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Ayma Mess
CCP Rise wrote:

WORM

Gallente Frigate Bonus:
10% bonus to kinetic and thermal missile damage (was 5m3 Drone Bay Capacity per level)

Caldari Frigate Bonus:
4% bonus to all shield resistances

Role Bonus:
300% bonus to light combat drone damage and hitpoints (was 50% bonus to Rocket and Light Missile velocity)


Slot layout: 3H, 4M, 3L; 0 turrets, 2 launchers
Fittings: 40 PWG(+5), 180 CPU(+20)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 830(+33) / 500(-82) / 620(-3)
Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 380(+30) / 212000 (-22375) / 1.79 (+.29)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 320(+33) / 3.8(+.31) / 965000 / 5.17s(+.42)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10(-15) / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 650 / 5
Sensor strength: 15
Signature radius: 40


I am dreadfully bored so I'm gonna give you my thoughts.

I am against superdrones. It'll turn what is otherwise one hull into a minifleet and encourage drone micromanagement shenanigans over other more appealing bits of pvp. I like drones for their versatility and fragility. It's ok that they are fragile because unless you're in a frigate shooting at mediums or higher, tracking is gonna suck unless you peel tackle off target to handle drones. Or you can smartbomb, which these drones will be pretty resistant to.

If rattlesnakes got super-sentries to match the worm, fielding a lot of them or any gurista ship would essentially invalidate the 50 drone assist hardcap, at least in some ways?

don't super tough drones effectively eliminate or severely reduce a need to micromanage drones that get the npc aggro that was so deliberately added for them?

If we get rid of this super drone idea, the worm could be more interesting then this! Its caldari tech engineered to be used against caldari right? What if you gave the worm the role of countering ECM boats by making them immune to Jams(or maybe all ewar?). The ECM ship cant jam its way out of being tackled, and the worm is fairly tanky, with good damage projection due to drones and missiles. Maybe you increase the drone range and speed so they can apply pressure to far off jammers ? it suits the gallente flavor. Either way, having a worm or two in a small fleet could prevent a similar sized force with a pocket falcon alt from totally crushing you before you manage to force the falcon off field or blow it up.

Maybe you could do something similar with the gila and the Rattlesnake, making them immune, and then giving them bonuses to ECCM projection or something, so you're forced to deal with them if you want your jams to be effective.

anyway, it'd probably make them insanely popular or possibly OP, but it'd be a nice way to keep jams from being the be-all and end-all of ewar. (ps 20 seconds is too long)

maybe rather than making them just plain immune and able to project eccm, make it a large bonus to self eccm too? so they have to work a bit to be jam nearly immune, and there is still a chance of being jammed.

ok im done, resume business as usual.
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#942 - 2014-02-28 01:07:38 UTC
Y'all gingers got no clue bout the Cruor. The bonuses work wonderful and will synergize into a ship that will dictate anything but a Daredevil*.


*Limitations may apply, such as Blaster-Daredevils s*cking donkeyballs and thus are easy prey.
Meandering Milieu
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#943 - 2014-02-28 01:10:56 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

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.


Lol sorry, my rant must have come out of nowhere then.

The Vindi, Mach, RS, CNR, and Nightmare all see decent PVE usage. Dev even said that the nightmare sees a lot of use as a PVE platform and didn't want to mess that up.

Similarly though, for your amusement, as a PVEr, until I started checking out the forums more, I never guess people used these ships for PVP. Their stats, layouts, and bonuses often make them amazing for PVE, and they are so expensive that using them for anything other than bait (where you have enough reinforcements to ensure it will live. ) makes little sense to me. (maybe tournaments? )

Otherwise why someone would choose a navy domi as a brawler over a Thron, Hyperion, or Neut Domi, considering performance to cost, baffles me. Especially since so many pvpers seem obsessed with their killboards and keeping a positive balance. Losing a 500-1bn ship (depending on pirate/navy ship ) sounds like a painful loss for performance gained.
Kapytul Gaynez
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#944 - 2014-02-28 01:41:29 UTC
Syrias Bizniz wrote:
Y'all gingers got no clue bout the Cruor. The bonuses work wonderful and will synergize into a ship that will dictate anything but a Daredevil*.


*Limitations may apply, such as Blaster-Daredevils s*cking donkeyballs and thus are easy prey.



The issue is that you can't use both bonuses at the same time. As soon as you get into nuet/nos range you are in normal web range and once again slower than everything else.
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#945 - 2014-02-28 04:04:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Spc One
Well if nightmare and other sansha ships get AB bonus they WILL need alot more cap.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#946 - 2014-02-28 04:33:33 UTC
Meandering Milieu wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

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.


Lol sorry, my rant must have come out of nowhere then.

The Vindi, Mach, RS, CNR, and Nightmare all see decent PVE usage. Dev even said that the nightmare sees a lot of use as a PVE platform and didn't want to mess that up.

Similarly though, for your amusement, as a PVEr, until I started checking out the forums more, I never guess people used these ships for PVP. Their stats, layouts, and bonuses often make them amazing for PVE, and they are so expensive that using them for anything other than bait (where you have enough reinforcements to ensure it will live. ) makes little sense to me. (maybe tournaments? )

Otherwise why someone would choose a navy domi as a brawler over a Thron, Hyperion, or Neut Domi, considering performance to cost, baffles me. Especially since so many pvpers seem obsessed with their killboards and keeping a positive balance. Losing a 500-1bn ship (depending on pirate/navy ship ) sounds like a painful loss for performance gained.


You do see the navy Domi mission running occasionally.

One of the sad things about EVE for many people is its very "ghetto". With the exception of incursions its actually detrimental to fly a blinged up fancy ride.
Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#947 - 2014-02-28 05:03:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Onslaughtor
My full thoughts on the proposed Sansha changes.

CCP Rise wrote:
Sansha: Sansha needs help. The Nightmare is getting used, mostly as a PVE platform, but the Succubus and Phantasm are among the least used ships in EVE. That means we have an opportunity to try something new! The theme we are currently excited about revolves around afterburners. By giving a substantial boost to the velocity bonus from afterburners we create an extremely powerful frigate, a lot of new options for the cruiser, and affect the Nightmare the least, which matches well with the impact we want.


While I love the idea of the bonused afterburner, it does not belong on a Sansha ship. The reasons why are that the weapon and tank type of the hull are not enhanced by the bonus in any meaningful way that another ship can’t do better. The fitting and slot lay-out is very constricting as you have balance tank, tackle, and cap. Finally it goes against the design of the ship and its faction.

Sansha ships are the vessels of a hard hitting sovereign nation, they are made to crush other empire fleets under boot, not to do hit and runs or to minimize damage. The main way I see to get Sansha ships being used is to make them what they are meant to be: main fleet combat ships. Without proper support a Sansha ship should not be able to last on the battlefield .

My main proposal is to move the 2 utility highs to a mid and a low on each ship, change the 5% damage bonus to a 7.5% damage bonus, and reduce the cargo hold on each ship by 40% to 60%. Make them dependent fleet ships.

My alternative proposal is the move 1 utility high to a low and to add an extra turret, increase shield hit point amount, and reduce the cargo hold on each ship by 40% to 60%. Make them dependent fleet ships.

Ultimately the afterburner bonus would fit better on a hull line designed to handle it and take full advantage of it, Mordu’s Legion would be an optimal choice for this as it fits their flavor more.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#948 - 2014-02-28 05:12:25 UTC
Ayma Mess wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

WORM

Gallente Frigate Bonus:
10% bonus to kinetic and thermal missile damage (was 5m3 Drone Bay Capacity per level)

Caldari Frigate Bonus:
4% bonus to all shield resistances

Role Bonus:
300% bonus to light combat drone damage and hitpoints (was 50% bonus to Rocket and Light Missile velocity)


Slot layout: 3H, 4M, 3L; 0 turrets, 2 launchers
Fittings: 40 PWG(+5), 180 CPU(+20)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 830(+33) / 500(-82) / 620(-3)
Capacitor (amount / recharge / cap per second) : 380(+30) / 212000 (-22375) / 1.79 (+.29)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 320(+33) / 3.8(+.31) / 965000 / 5.17s(+.42)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10(-15) / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 650 / 5
Sensor strength: 15
Signature radius: 40


I am dreadfully bored so I'm gonna give you my thoughts.

I am against superdrones. It'll turn what is otherwise one hull into a minifleet and encourage drone micromanagement shenanigans over other more appealing bits of pvp. I like drones for their versatility and fragility. It's ok that they are fragile because unless you're in a frigate shooting at mediums or higher, tracking is gonna suck unless you peel tackle off target to handle drones. Or you can smartbomb, which these drones will be pretty resistant to.

If rattlesnakes got super-sentries to match the worm, fielding a lot of them or any gurista ship would essentially invalidate the 50 drone assist hardcap, at least in some ways?


You seem confused. On the one hand you are against micromanagement shenanigans and feel the superdrone will cause more of it, and on the other you are against the reduction of micromanagement and feel superdrones will negate the need for it.

I am not sure what about their fragility you find appealing, unless you mean when your enemies field them. I am guessing you dont use them a lot yourself, as your main concern seems to be to insure you can hjt them easily.

The AI was changed for a number of reasons, not just to make drones unuseabld in PvE. It was a problem that all you ever had to do in a mission was warp one tank ship in first, and anyone else could go in pure gank. This needed fixing both for PvE fleets and for hunters of PvE ships... Everyone in space should have to fit their ship to handle the environment, not just the guy the pirates want to shoot at.

The problem with drone assist is one of the biggest boondoggles in EVE history. Supposedly its only really a problem on hulls with the new Gallente style tracking and range bonus, as drones from any other source are subpar. Until that new bonus was in play drone assist rocked on just fine for 10 years without any problems. Now that drone tracking mods are nerfed, and the Gurista ships are not slated to get the tracking bonus, the superdrone should be fine. Even if the null-blobbers do choose to use it, at least it will be less lag.

Consider that the best solution is still just to shoot the drone ship instead of the drone. Really nothing has changed in that regard. Even if you do decide to attack the drone, at least the option exists unlike every other weapon system in the game... Would you prefer to just remove drones as an in space weapon and instead just have everyone using turrets and missiles?
Evi Polevhia
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#949 - 2014-02-28 05:14:57 UTC
Onslaughtor wrote:
My full thoughts on the proposed Sansha changes.

While I love the idea of the bonused afterburner, it does not belong on a Sansha ship. The reasons why are that the weapon and tank type of the hull are not enhanced by the bonus in any meaningful way that another ship can’t do better. The fitting and slot lay-out is very constricting as you have balance tank, tackle, and cap. Finally it goes against the design of the ship and its faction.

Sansha ships are the vessels of a hard hitting sovereign nation, they are made to crush other empire fleets under boot, not to do hit and runs or to minimize damage. The main way I see to get Sansha ships being used is to make them what they are meant to be: main fleet combat ships. Without proper support a Sansha ship should not be able to last on the battlefield .

My main proposal is to move the 2 utility highs to a mid and a low on each ship, change the 5% damage bonus to a 7.5% damage bonus, and reduce the cargo hold on each ship by 40% to 60%. Make them dependent fleet ships.

My alternative proposal is the move 1 utility high to a low and to add an extra turret, increase shield hit point amount, and reduce the cargo hold on each ship by 40% to 60%. Make them dependent fleet ships.

Ultimately the afterburner bonus would fit better on a hull line designed to handle it and take full advantage of it, Mordu’s Legion would be an optimal choice for this as it fits their flavor more.



I'll be the first one to say I don't know how to fly or fit ships well. I just kinda bumble my way about the universe and things (usually me) explode.

But that being said, I like this idea. Afterburner bonus doesn't feel thematically right for Nation. The whole hivemind Unity business gives the feeling that their ships are designed to work together as one massive fleet. Making them stronger while having them rely on other ships seems like a better direction then speed bonus.
Naava Edios
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#950 - 2014-02-28 05:26:01 UTC
Onslaughtor wrote:
My full thoughts on the proposed Sansha changes.

CCP Rise wrote:
Sansha: Sansha needs help. The Nightmare is getting used, mostly as a PVE platform, but the Succubus and Phantasm are among the least used ships in EVE. That means we have an opportunity to try something new! The theme we are currently excited about revolves around afterburners. By giving a substantial boost to the velocity bonus from afterburners we create an extremely powerful frigate, a lot of new options for the cruiser, and affect the Nightmare the least, which matches well with the impact we want.


While I love the idea of the bonused afterburner, it does not belong on a Sansha ship. The reasons why are that the weapon and tank type of the hull are not enhanced by the bonus in any meaningful way that another ship can’t do better. The fitting and slot lay-out is very constricting as you have balance tank, tackle, and cap. Finally it goes against the design of the ship and its faction.

Sansha ships are the vessels of a hard hitting sovereign nation, they are made to crush other empire fleets under boot, not to do hit and runs or to minimize damage. The main way I see to get Sansha ships being used is to make them what they are meant to be: main fleet combat ships. Without proper support a Sansha ship should not be able to last on the battlefield .

My main proposal is to move the 2 utility highs to a mid and a low on each ship, change the 5% damage bonus to a 7.5% damage bonus, and reduce the cargo hold on each ship by 40% to 60%. Make them dependent fleet ships.

My alternative proposal is the move 1 utility high to a low and to add an extra turret, increase shield hit point amount, and reduce the cargo hold on each ship by 40% to 60%. Make them dependent fleet ships.

Ultimately the afterburner bonus would fit better on a hull line designed to handle it and take full advantage of it, Mordu’s Legion would be an optimal choice for this as it fits their flavor more.



^^ I'm with Onslaughtor, Lets get these ship changes right shall we?
Caera Ashlocke
Tactical Command Insurgence and Reconnaissance
#951 - 2014-02-28 07:48:14 UTC
Okay so here is for my five cents. Firstly I am really excited about these proposed changes - well for insomuch as they relate to frigates. I am cautious and curious about the worm, but suspect it may make for an interesting change. As for the others, well, My only caveat is to make sure that the succubus has enough agility and optimal range to benefit from the ab boost, but yeah. I am ESPECIALLY relieved that the web bonuses to serpentis are not being nerfed.

Secondly what you don't go into much is the cruisers and battleships. I trust that I am jumping the gun - by a lot here - and that they will be addressed in future dev blogs. The Phanty needs much love. Much. The phanty is a brawler so much as with the succy agility is an issue. Sansha ships are fitted on what I'd like to call 'a razor's edge'. They are great but need so much cap fine-tuning that even slight changes make for a very difficult boat.

If you do at some stage look at giving the nightmare an ab bonus, please consider instead making it either an ab or mwd bonus. The reason for this is that the mare is a sniper platform. It is great in missions - slowboating with a gank tank, but if one had to drop a mid mod for an ab, it would sit with tanking issues. On the other hand the mare is nice in incursions, but for vg's you stand still (or move slow) and in hq's you need a mwd.
Sinooko
Tharumec
Gespenster Kompanie
#952 - 2014-02-28 08:29:16 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
What? so.. your idea of effectiveness is ensurign that you are not helping your fleet at all?

I'm talking about solo and bonus webs do help your fleet. Do you think the Cruor needs to use its neuts on every ship it sees to be effective?


No, just like a griffon doesn't need to use ECM on every ship it sees to be effective. It can fit missiles after all!
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#953 - 2014-02-28 11:20:04 UTC
One general comment.


Can we please avoid the tiresome cycle of buffing something to the point of being OP, waiting to everyone stockpiles and trains for the newly OP thing and then nerfing that thing to the point of uselessness :D
Nicolas Main-Guet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#954 - 2014-02-28 11:20:53 UTC
Kel hound wrote:
While the worm looks fun, how exactly is this going to translate to the Gila and Rattlesnake? If you make the Gila use 2 medium drones then can't it just launch 4 smalls? And what about the Rattlesnake? If you give her enough bandwidth for just 2 heavys what's to stop it from launching 5 mediums?

Duno ... maybe just by giving a 300% bonus to medium to the Gila and 300% to heavy to the Rattlesnake...
Seem pretty logic to me.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#955 - 2014-02-28 11:33:45 UTC
Nicolas Main-Guet wrote:
300% to heavy to the Rattlesnake...


You do that to a Rattle and you may as well delete it.
Quindaster
Infernal Laboratory
Infernal Octopus
#956 - 2014-02-28 11:35:22 UTC
Very funny.

I think this CCP Rise think he found something new for us and interesting when he found this idea in own mind to change ashimu and cruor web bonuses... But, I think, CCP invite new people on CCP Devs position every year, and most of them even doesn't know what kind of bonuses this ships had before...
So, or CCP thinks we all here dumb and no one remember what kind of bonuses we had here before, or they want to create great new cheap patch, without doing anything useful and without any hard work, simply to modify again few database attributes on old ships and thats all. Cheap and always work.

Just to remind CCP Rise...this ships ALREADY had this bonuses 7 years AGO !!!
And after 7 years we will start to play "oh, new game, new bonuses"...game...
And after 3 years or 4 CCP will change back web bonuses on web effectiveness and after back again on range on same ships...like for idiots...


Quote:
Posted - 2007.08.23 16:46:00 - [1]

The Cruor currently gets:

Special Ability: 50% reduction in Small Energy Turret capacitor use

Amarr Frigate Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Energy Vampire drain amount per level

Minmatar Frigate Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Stasis Webifier activation range per level



Very funny NEW bonuses on NEW SHIPS !!! WOW!!
Thank you CCP Rise, you was found really something NEW !!!
We never had it before, only 7 years ago! WOW !

Lets play in 2014 game of 2007 !!! WOW!

After 7 years some new CCP dev will change your bonuses back and he will write same happy post about how hard he work to found new bonuses and we will play in 2020 game of 2013.

Your CCP Devs proved many times, they even doesn't know what kind of bonuses ships have now.
Especially funny was when Senior GM even doesn't knew omnidirect modules now using scripts...and he was sure like other GM's, they not use scripts...

So, for me it looks like you all there even doesn't know when you change old ships on old bonuses.
Maybe simply install back Trinity or The Empyrean age expansion and thats all, let's back in time, and I will back to play Unreal Tournament 99...and at least will stop pay for CCP hundreds of USD every month.


Itago Gemulus
Station Spinners United
#957 - 2014-02-28 11:42:23 UTC
Quindaster wrote:



If you want new stuff whenever something changes, i suggest you go play WoW...

Changing around bonuses in an attemt to make balance, is hard work. just look at the number of people in this thread that have problems with masic math :P Trying to avoid OP ships and at the same time bring use to underused ships mean you ahve to take into accord not just what each and every ship can do, but what players decide they should be able to do
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#958 - 2014-02-28 11:49:56 UTC
Itago Gemulus wrote:
Quindaster wrote:



If you want new stuff whenever something changes, i suggest you go play WoW...

Changing around bonuses in an attemt to make balance, is hard work. just look at the number of people in this thread that have problems with masic math :P Trying to avoid OP ships and at the same time bring use to underused ships mean you ahve to take into accord not just what each and every ship can do, but what players decide they should be able to do



That! If older was better.. no reason to not go back. And several old player beleive several things were better....

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Quindaster
Infernal Laboratory
Infernal Octopus
#959 - 2014-02-28 12:07:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Quindaster
Itago Gemulus wrote:
Quindaster wrote:



If you want new stuff whenever something changes, i suggest you go play WoW...

Changing around bonuses in an attemt to make balance, is hard work. just look at the number of people in this thread that have problems with masic math :P Trying to avoid OP ships and at the same time bring use to underused ships mean you ahve to take into accord not just what each and every ship can do, but what players decide they should be able to do



I will explain you in other way, so you will understand maybe like for 6 years old kid.

If I brake your leg, you will need to find job for itself not too far away from your home (in close range).
After you found job (I think it will be some job near computer where you can use own 2 hands) so after I will brake your one arm, because I think, you type on computer too fast and even 1 arm will be enough for you.
After when you will be absolutely useless, I will tell you - I will repair your broken leg a bit, so you will be rebalanced and find a job far away from own home, with one arm...
And after maybe I will brake your second arm, but you can be far away from your home and need to be happy.

So, you want to say, you will be more happy with broken legs and arms, even if I have promised you, I can turn back time and aim fully your leg and we can count it never happened?

Maybe would be better even not to brake your legs and arms and after 7 years understand it?
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#960 - 2014-02-28 12:11:43 UTC
Naava Edios wrote:
Onslaughtor wrote:
My full thoughts on the proposed Sansha changes.

CCP Rise wrote:
Sansha: Sansha needs help. The Nightmare is getting used, mostly as a PVE platform, but the Succubus and Phantasm are among the least used ships in EVE. That means we have an opportunity to try something new! The theme we are currently excited about revolves around afterburners. By giving a substantial boost to the velocity bonus from afterburners we create an extremely powerful frigate, a lot of new options for the cruiser, and affect the Nightmare the least, which matches well with the impact we want.


While I love the idea of the bonused afterburner, it does not belong on a Sansha ship. The reasons why are that the weapon and tank type of the hull are not enhanced by the bonus in any meaningful way that another ship can’t do better. The fitting and slot lay-out is very constricting as you have balance tank, tackle, and cap. Finally it goes against the design of the ship and its faction.

Sansha ships are the vessels of a hard hitting sovereign nation, they are made to crush other empire fleets under boot, not to do hit and runs or to minimize damage. The main way I see to get Sansha ships being used is to make them what they are meant to be: main fleet combat ships. Without proper support a Sansha ship should not be able to last on the battlefield .

My main proposal is to move the 2 utility highs to a mid and a low on each ship, change the 5% damage bonus to a 7.5% damage bonus, and reduce the cargo hold on each ship by 40% to 60%. Make them dependent fleet ships.

My alternative proposal is the move 1 utility high to a low and to add an extra turret, increase shield hit point amount, and reduce the cargo hold on each ship by 40% to 60%. Make them dependent fleet ships.

Ultimately the afterburner bonus would fit better on a hull line designed to handle it and take full advantage of it, Mordu’s Legion would be an optimal choice for this as it fits their flavor more.



^^ I'm with Onslaughtor, Lets get these ship changes right shall we?


Agree 100% completely also with the premise. Although not with the solutions. Although the first two paragraphs are spot on and sum up my own thoughts nicely.