These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Assault Ships

First post First post
Author
Alex Medvedov
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#381 - 2012-01-10 01:22:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Alex Medvedov
@ Prometheus Exenthal
First I am absolutely backing up your dismisal for any kind of AB bonus on AFs; hell you might have even convinced me about the reasons for MWD sig bunus and if it helps AFs to be used in 0.0 fleets in any meaningful manner, Iam in favor of that idea. As dont you neither do I think there will be any sighificant competition between AFs and Inties.

And there is one more thing you are right about - yes we lowsec people tend to be stubborn, but I have tested new changes quite extensivelly on Sisi...

Results in brief
Fights between AFs take a way longer (this might be caused by usual difference between TQ and Sisi setups, but also might be not)

Wolf apperars to be far better than it used to be - it got more than compensated for inability to use a web. The new variant can deliver massive damage from 0 to 13 kms without tracking issues it used to have and its tank got significantly increased.

Hawk well we had much of the debate on that ... so lets sumarize: no tracking issues and ability to hit targets from 0 to 15 kms (with rockets), tank comparable only with the Vengeance or ultimate range control provided by 2 and still able to fit medium shield extender to provide sufficient tank.

Vengeance - although i had some concerns about its dps might be too much with its already great tank, I was probably wrong. The ship is better but not too much.

Enyo - has too effective tank. Althoug at the end i might be persuaded to accept Enyo with 3 mids, its tank should be lowered. Web and increased hp work too much in Enyos favor.

Iskhur - well its slightly tougher to crack but in comparison with other new AFs it lost much of its previous deadliness.

Jaguar - really struggles to take on any AF exept the Iskhur. The added lowslot is not much of use for it due to PG and CPU constrains.

Harpy, Retribution - sadly i had little chance to test them properly so i ll not mention them here.

Side note for you Prom - i was testing those ship in 1v1 combat not as you were doing one fleet against the other - engagements of that kind (although more frequent on TQ) are not telling us really much about the balance and you are right your stupid 5 mid Hawk is not to look any OP while attacked by 2 or more other Afs.

@Mars
Nice so you have replaced 5 mid Hawk with 5 mid Jaguar - give me that and i ll blast anything frig sized out of the space:))
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#382 - 2012-01-10 01:23:40 UTC
@Prom: I've taken the time to read this thread, and I see you are quite biased, as this idea was yours to begin with. Plenty of people with and without experience have contested these changes and stated firmly that they are either OP, or just not appropriate to the ship class.

I won't bother to argue my points anymore, as I see it is entirely useless; even though I've noticed more than a few who agre with me, among those that PvP and those that have tested the ships, or use them for PvE.

Frankly, I find your attitude relatively easy-going; but that doesn't mean I agree with your position. With exception to a small number; it seems I'm not alone in this.

I may be incorrect, but I will argue one thing: wtf do you mean the launcher frigates get insane damage. Do you mean DPS, or just volley?

Sure, if volley counts for **** at this level; they get it pretty good. But really, unless you're planning on ganking an Ibis with Alpha, I really don't get it. DPS off a Missile Hawk with level 5 skills and no other fittings is pathetic compared to any AF using Turrets under the same circumstances. The Vengeance is just as bad with Rockets; given that its extra itty-bitty DPS is at extremely short range with Rockets.

I don't need to test it on SiSi to see what is completely obvious. I'm also not alone in thinking this.

Also, not everyone has all related skills to level 5; in fact, nobody has all skills to level 5. I'm sure you may be sitting pretty with all the SP in the right places; but you're not accounting for early trainers to the AF line-up.

Sure, they'll have T2 guns; but can their other skills compensate for the penalties to Null ammo? Maybe not as bad as they were; but probably not fantastic. Also, fitting ability decreases with skill levels in the appropriate areas; so saying how can you not, is like saying you don't remember what having low SP is like.

Ideally, everyone has 5 in Engineering, Electronics, Energy Managements, etc.. Sure, I get it. But, how many ever really do?

This all changes the performance and capability of the ships; and it also changes the perspective of the pilots on either side of that equation.

Whatever.. I'm sure you'll figure it out the first year it goes live; if it happens to stay like this.

I'm all for the Overheat bonus myself. Reducing damage to the modules, is very fitting for an AF; as would be increasing resistance to ECM or TDs, or something. Save the Overheat Damage reduction for T3.

I like the MWD bonus too, as an alternative. AB would be OP, I agree.

MWD bonus is very obviously intended for Nullsec though. How could it not be?
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#383 - 2012-01-10 01:27:06 UTC
@Alex: Maybe, but for all I know you might anyway. Fact is, it still has fitting limitations to account for.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Alex Medvedov
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#384 - 2012-01-10 01:40:32 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
@Alex: Maybe, but for all I know you might anyway. Fact is, it still has fitting limitations to account for.


Sure, but not only. Jaguar you are proposing would be able to fit something like web+2 mid shield extenders+ab+scram combo..Which would be nice for me as a Jag pilot, but iam not sure about others:))

And actually you are wrong on several asumptions from your previous post:

Rockets are no longer laughable - both Vengeance and Hawk are working pretty good with them on TQ

Many people actually have all skills needed to fly their ship at 5, its not something impossible to achieve. And fi you are thinking about balancing out anything you have to take the final stage into account - theres no point to balance anything for a player who has just enough skills to be allowed to sit into that particular ship.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#385 - 2012-01-10 01:49:22 UTC
@Alex: I wasn't suggesting that the pilots in question only have enough skills to sit in the ship. Plenty of pilots have not trained all associated skills to 5. To do so requires a lot of SP and time.

Regardless, if you believe the Vengeance gets insane DPS, (I'm using Crucible numbers btw); have two friends of approx. equal skill buffer tank the same ship type with same fit. Take a Vengeance with another pilot, and a Retribution with someone else, (also equal skilled), and have them fit approx. same fit.

Make sure your target ships are HACs or BCs btw. Now have each proceed to DPS the indivdual targets at the same time from optimal, and with equivalent orbits. Take a few minutes and see what happens. Might want to use EM or Thermal Missiles too, and keep the crystals approx. the same damage type.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#386 - 2012-01-10 01:52:41 UTC
@Alex
I'm glad we're starting to see eye to eye Smile

The Wolf is alright, I think it's fairly balanced because in order for it to do reasonably high damage, it needs to sacrifice a fair bit of tank. T2 Matari don't make the greatest armor tankers, so I think it's a fair trade.

The Enyo is a bit tanky for what kind of damage it can do. Although for every person I smoke with it, I get easily trumped by someone else in a Wolf or something, so I'm unsure if the extra 200 armor is that bad a thing.

The Hawk, as I said elsewhere is pretty niceley balanced. It's DPS isn't obscene, and the high numbers are pretty much restricted to Kinetic.

The Jag needs more fittings and a probably some extra base shields. Slightly more powergrid and a fair bit more CPU would balance it out nicely with the rest.


@Mars
Many of those complaining that they think the changes are OP haven't actually been testing them.
I've been logged a ton of hours into sisi testing these ships, and the few that have come in with that mindset, have changed their minds.

As for the rockets, they do tons of damage. My Vengeance puts out about 210 dps before heat with my skills. That's 210 guaranteed dps into any damage type I choose. Sure it may not sound like much against larger targets, but at the frigate level that is a very strong number. Similarly, my 4 rocket Hawk does 215 in kinetic, or if i want to mix up my damage types, 240 with 3 rockets and 2 multispec lasers.

I can understand your concern with players who have a lower skill level, but the fact of the matter is that everyone is skilling up constantly. If we make ships specifically balanced for the lower SP folks in mind, then we are left with significantly more powerful ships for those with higher SP.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

placeholder Zateki
Freehold Fleet
#387 - 2012-01-10 02:15:01 UTC
I've had to write this post 4 times now, so excuse me if I sound a bit jaded

The changes to base stats are, in my view, unnecessary. The wolf could already tank fine, the enyo doesn't need more tank and gank concurrently. Likewise the extra slots are not needed, with the exception of the retribution's medium slot (which is a long overdue gift from a benevolent deity), adding slots to ships is opening a whole can of worms that is best left closed. The arguments as to why this ship got that slot would never end.

The fourth bonus is welcome, but I believe that buffs AFs sufficiently.

The bloom bonus I cannot be sold on. Prom and others have stated that it enables AFs to get to the target, and that is true.

However, it seems they have not considered what happens when a small ship like an assault frigate is placed into web/scram/neut range of larger ships (with drones) without a propulsion mod. Basically, the flight to the enemy fleet would be a one way trip. Small ships just can't cover themselves against everything that a decent sized enemy force could bring to bear.

Interceptors survive, usually (and only with good piloting), because they can maintain range and speed, as such drones are really their only concern and they can protect against them. Putting any frigate, t2 or otherwise into the Ewar range of larger ships is not recommended, something frigate PvPers learn early on.

These ships seem made for solo and small gang combat, not large fleet warfare. They have the capability to tank and deal appreciable damage in these smaller scenarios, but are not built (and should not be built imo) to survive the horrors of the blob's interior.

Every ship has a role, but not every ship has a role in large scale fleet pvp.

Please, remove the bloom bonus, either leave the role bonus empty (preferred) or make it something inline with the current usage of the ship.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#388 - 2012-01-10 02:25:03 UTC
I think you're missing the point a bit.

The bloom bonus simply makes it possible to use the ships with an MWD.
It's 100% suicidal if you even bother attempting it right now.

Any engagement into scramble range is a one way trip, no matter what ship you're flying.
The difference is that current AFs can't even do that. The bloom change allows the ships to move about the battlefield and get to where they are needed the most.

AFs are still being sniped down by anti-support, there's nothing wrong with that.
AFs are still being shot down by multiple large targets converging on one, there's nothing wrong with that.
The same thing applies to any ship, and that's how it should be.

The changes make it so that Joe Hurricane can't nonchalantly 1 volley your AF that's MWDing parallel @ 40km.
The changes make it so that if you jump into a bubble/gate camp, you can retain some ability to escape without being popped on the spot.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#389 - 2012-01-10 02:25:13 UTC
Maybe EFT is off, but the numbers I'm getting there with level 5 accounted for.

[Vengeance, New Setup 1]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II
[empty low slot]

[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]

Rocket Launcher II, Gremlin Rage Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Gremlin Rage Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Gremlin Rage Rocket
Rocket Launcher II, Gremlin Rage Rocket

Small Bay Loading Accelerator II
[empty rig slot]

213 DPS with ZMR 3000 and ZMM 1100 damage and duration implants.

[Hawk, New Setup 1]
Ballistic Control System II
Ballistic Control System II

[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]
[empty med slot]

Standard Missile Launcher II, Bloodclaw Fury Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Bloodclaw Fury Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Bloodclaw Fury Light Missile
Standard Missile Launcher II, Bloodclaw Fury Light Missile
[empty high slot]

Small Bay Loading Accelerator II
[empty rig slot]

178 DPS with ZMN 3000 and ZMM 1100 damage and duration implants

[Retribution, New Setup 1]
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
[empty low slot]
[empty low slot]

[empty med slot]

Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
Medium Pulse Laser II, Conflagration S
[empty high slot]

Small Energy Burst Aerator II
[empty rig slot]

312 DPS with no implants

That's current, as opposed to SiSi numbers. Given those fits would have trouble getting a realistic complement of other modules though; I have a hard time believing your numbers are correct; or EFT is lying to me.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#390 - 2012-01-10 02:35:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
What do the current TQ numbers have to do with anything?
The Vengeance and Hawk both get a 25% ROF increase, you're EFT is useless.
The numbers I gave were with zmm100 and zmr1000 implants, a single T2 bay loading accelerator, and a single BCU.

What you've displayed here is your inability to acknowledge change, inability read the op, as well as make terrible terrible fits P

As for the Hawk, it's primarily a rocket ship. Yes you can fit missiles, but they kinda suck.
Although, that's no fault of the ship. Assault Missile Launchers & Standard Launchers have been in need of a boost for some time now.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#391 - 2012-01-10 02:48:18 UTC
Prom's Vengeance uses lasers iirc (2 of them I think) which increase the DPS significantly. My current fit on TQ does 140 - with the RoF bonus that goes to 188 - with faction rockets. These numbers are with heat. Why with heat? Well, frigate fights don't generally lost long enough for modules to burn out so everything useful should be heated when in use.

These numbers seem low on paper but try them out in actual PvP! Faction rockets hit a webbed AF for full damage everytime - there's no transversal etc. to deal with. Hell, you can even use Rage vs shield buffered frigates and anything bigger to bring the DPS to 158/210 (pre/post nerf).

Hawks don't fit Standard Missile Launchers - they fit Rockets due to the fitting constraints of the SMLs. Try again with Rockets and you'll end up with similiar numbers to the Vengeance (slightly higher when using Kinetic, lower with EM).

Your Retri fit does indeed do way more DPS but that fit is completely not viable in actual PvP due to having to fit for more than simply DPS. With Medium Pulses, the Retri runs into huge CPU/PG reasons once you add Heat Sinks. Most fits use DLPs for a reason.

FYI most PvPers beyond 20M SP have fitting skills to V, with the exception of AWU. Most of them can get 90%+ of a ship's performance compared to "All - V" on EFT.

Regarding the AFs as they stand on SiSi:

Enyo - Drop the bonus armor, replace the +5% damage bonus with an MWD capacitor bonus like the Thorax
Ishkur - Needs a drone damage bonus to not fall behind the other AFs, or alternatively give it the +200 armor the Enyo got

Hawk - Drop the 5th mid, add a Low slot.
Harpy - Fine

Retribution - As I told you Prom (and you refused to listen) , the Retri needs more than a tracking bonus to be competitive. Boost the damage bonus to 7.5% or alternatively add a 5th turret slot along with appropriate fittings.
Vengeance - Leave as.

Jaguar - Boost base shields by 200, boost CPU by ~15.
Wolf - Fine as is, although replacing the tracking bonus with a straight up velocity bonus would be interesting.

Currently, Hawk is far and ahead the best AF with the Harpy/Vengeance/Enyo behind it. Wolf is also good, Retri is lackluster and the Jaguar & Ishkur are far away in the dust.
CobaltSixty
Fawkes' Loyal Professionals
#392 - 2012-01-10 02:49:26 UTC
@ Alex Medvedov and others

Would a Wolf with an MSE be so bad? I understand that it kind of treads on the Jaguar's current typical fitting but it doesn't marginalize the Jaguar which can consistently combine a shield tank and scram/web tackle, something the Wolf still couldn't with a shield tank. The CPU requirements of the MSE will also wear heavily on the Wolf.

Although fitting norms are unlikely to change much (instead of just being expanded upon), when these changes make it to TQ, there'll be a stronger (than before) chance of Jaguars having the opposite tank to what you might expect. Armor tanking becomes a strange but possible practice with 4 low-slot Jaguars - why not allow the Wolf the same sort of varied potential? Why should the Wolf be forced into armor tanking, instead of just suggesting it? It has always been the only Assault Ship that had a reduction in slots at any level from its T1 variant.

@ Mars Theran

Refer to the post in my signature but a more reasonable base fitting for a Vengeance of 4 Rocket Launcher IIs and a Ballistic Control II should yield 151 DPS with faction rockets. Hawk with same base fitting will do 181 DPS with faction kinetic, 121 with faction for all the other types.
ChakanForever
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#393 - 2012-01-10 02:50:54 UTC
How about you also introduce a command ship - gang assist mod that also gives a boost to frigs? Fear the frig blob!
Jaigar
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#394 - 2012-01-10 03:20:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaigar
ChakanForever wrote:
How about you also introduce a command ship - gang assist mod that also gives a boost to frigs? Fear the frig blob!

Its called a Claymore, and they now make frigate signature radius extra teeny tiny, extend your non-overheated scram range to 13.5km, and give you a nice AB/MWD speed boost(and 15% agility). However getting the Claymore to keep up with frigates is another issue..

I seem to have fitting issues with my Vengence fits, and I only use meta4 launchers. Maybe I need to go back and check it out.

Just curious, has anyone actually tried orbiting said hurricane at 25/30/35/40km ranges or so and see if they still get instapopped?
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#395 - 2012-01-10 03:32:59 UTC
**** this forum, jesus christ. Posts keep getting eaten every time someone make a post before I do.

@Suleiman
My Vengeance's numbers were pure rage rockets, no turrets.
If anything I think the Vengeances dps is a bit high. Dialing back the ROF bonus a bit may be a good idea.

Enyo - Agreed on the armor, disgree on the MWD bonus. Without the extra armor the ship is pretty fair.
Ishkur - Agreed on the armor, disagree on the drone damage. The Ishkur currently hurts like a *****, it doesn't need 150 drone dps

Hawk - God no. The Hawk is just fine now. Removing the 5th mid puts it back into **** territory. It's by no means as overpowered as a couple of you are claiming. I wouldn't even call it top tier

Retribution - I think I said it on FHC as well as here, yes it needs it's damage increased. 7.5% per level seems to be a popular number on sisi as well as here. I can agree with that.
Vengeance - See the above text.

Jag - Agreed, it just needs a bit more shields and base fitting (cpu & pg)
Wolf - It's fine

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

Tawa Suyo
Hun-Select
#396 - 2012-01-10 03:45:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tawa Suyo
So....

Wolf with an optimal bonus.

Why?

Seriously, what was the intention behind reducing the damage projection of a ship with weak range control within scram?


Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Wolf - It's fine

It was :(
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#397 - 2012-01-10 03:53:04 UTC
It hasn't got the optimal change yet (!!!).
The description changed, but the actual stat hasn't

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#398 - 2012-01-10 03:54:29 UTC
Unforgiven Storm wrote:
CCP Tallest wrote:


Wolf

* Added bonus: 7.5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret Tracking per level
* +1 low slot
* +200 armor hp
* +10 CPU


It seams good but 2 details:

While the jaguar is more a tackling ship, the wolf is a killer! Its a DPS ship! This ship needs to put more damage out, so the missile launcher does not make sence in a ship that gives bonus to turrents! Give the possibility to fit 1 more turrent instead! And if you do this, give it a bonus to guns fitting so we can fit all 5 guns with no CPU or power problems...

Also this ship is a armor tanking ship! Low sig and speed is what it keeps it alive! For that to happen you cannot fit a MDW!
Please give it more base speed and give an afterburner 50% speed bonus instead of MDW bonus to this ship!


Please Dude just stop it ....
Tawa Suyo
Hun-Select
#399 - 2012-01-10 03:58:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tawa Suyo
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
It hasn't got the optimal change yet (!!!).
The description changed, but the actual stat hasn't


Yeh, I saw the description on SiSi and assumed it was a typo, especially since the Jag still says optimal too and in fact now has the same bonuses. Bad copy and paste job maybe? I mean, it's such a patently bad idea that's I can't see any way it was a deliberate change...

But then wasn't sure from your posts on FHC whether it was something CCP actually intended to change or not. Any idea?
Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#400 - 2012-01-10 03:59:17 UTC
Btw. When Tallest is here. What about hybrids ? Working on it ? Yes we are still waiting for it .. Thanks and sorry for small off topic..