These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#441 - 2012-01-10 10:49:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
I've also killed destroyers, even Thrashers, in frigates when I was doing FW because there are a lot of newer players there. It has little significance when it comes to balancing.

Try a destroyer vs an AF on SiSi with experienced pilots and you'll see destroyers are good, except possibly the Cormorant.
Suleiman Shouaa
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#442 - 2012-01-10 10:50:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Suleiman Shouaa
Currently, all Destroyers can deal with AFs unless they are fit specifically for killing them, unless if the Destroyer is bad (or Coercer vs plated Wolf, always a tough fight, or if the AF is a Vengeance)

Most people are theorycrafting about how this dynamic will change without actually thinking about what exactly has changed. The Wolf gaining a tracking bonus is practically irrelevant - current good Wolf pilots have no issues hitting Destroyers in the first place! The MWD bonus is simply to get you into the fight and not used once there (unless you're pulsing if he pulls out to >9km). The extra low is (generally) used to fill in the secondary resist hole of Minmatar T2 armor tanks so tank goes up, as well as the +200 armor.

These changes along should make AFs vs Destroyers a very tight fight, which potentially go either way.

As for an AF beating a Cruiser with a neut, I suggest looking at the Vengeance. A good pilot can deal with an Shield Rupture (1 medium & 1 small neut) or a Shield Hurricane (2 medium neuts) if he's on the ball! Adding the utility high to fit a nos without compromising damage will make it very, very effective at killing these ships. HINT: You don't need an AB to get under a Cruiser's guns, unless if he has a web and/or TEd Blasters.

Hawk & Vengeance DPS is always hard to balance due to the nature of rockets - 100% damage application. A good pilot in an gun AF can get maybe ~75% of damage application down in reality once the fight starts due to optimal & tracking changing over the course of a fight.
Rawls Canardly
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#443 - 2012-01-10 11:16:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rawls Canardly
I'd rather see a 50% hull resist bonus, to add survivability.
edit- or a bonus to afterburner thrust, to increase speed in close orbit.
Alex Medvedov
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#444 - 2012-01-10 11:19:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Alex Medvedov
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
@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.

[


We have maybe agreed upon some things, but still we are not starting to see eye to eye as good as you might expect:)

First of all you still did not tell me while the slot tossing between AFs is nessesary in the first place. I am still against it, because it is really breaking ballance among AFs. It is true that CCP is trying to boost some of let say "not so effective" Assault ships but the boost is so huge that at the end it simply changing order of usefulness among AFs, with the differences in effectivity far bigger than it used to be.

To elaborate:
AFs as a class can be broken into two groups - DPS (with fewer med slots and high damage output) and heavy tackle (at least 3 meds and mediocre damage output). The first group, as i understand the problem, should be more effective against other AFs and the second against cruisers and bigger. Although this "role" distribution might not be 100% valid today, with new changes it being effectively killed, only to bring new ballance issues. (Please, Prom bear in mind iam talking about balance issues between AFs only)

If breaking the "role" division between AFs was the case, than so be it. Than balancing all of them in their class is in order, but still I cannot see the necesity to do get rid of this distinction at the first place.

As its now on Sisi - Wolf is too strong and too versatile, its armor bonus has to go at least.
- Hawk (last time and mentioning it:)) with 5 meds its OP nomatter what do you think Prom, if you wanna
keep the 5th mid, Hawk has to at least lose range bonus for rockets and some shield resist
reduction might be in order as well...
- Enyo its armor bonus has to go without adding anything new
- Jag needs at least some CPU added preferably more shield resists as well
- others are more or less ok

@ Dark and Sylvous
Theres no reason having AFs as the low sec only ships. And i agree with you that this fitting slot tossing is entirelly unnessesary, but if that sig radius reduction will help AFs in 0.0 to move across the battlefield quickly without being shred to pieces by snipers, whats so bad about it? This bonus will hardly do anything else...
Alex Medvedov
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#445 - 2012-01-10 11:21:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Alex Medvedov
double post
Alex Medvedov
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#446 - 2012-01-10 11:34:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Alex Medvedov
triple post Big smile
Bengal Bob
Slymsloot Enterprises
#447 - 2012-01-10 12:06:57 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
I'm an extremely active pvper, and I have thousands of kills and 15 popular videos to back it up Roll
I haven't really done too much on TQ since Crucible was released and that has more to do with Iceland, holidays, & testing the AFs.

If Destroyers are still dying to T1 frigates AND able to kill T1 cruisers, you're looking at terrible Destroyer pilots in the frig situation, and terrible Cruiser pilots in the other. A Destroyer in web range of a Cruiser is like fish in a barrel. The same can be said if you're going to bring a frigate in tackle range of a Destroyer.

Multiple frigates vs a Destroyer or multiple Destroyers vs Cruiser are poor examples for balancing, as you can say the exact thing about T1 Cruisers vs something like Battlecruiser or Battleship.

The MWD bonus is a massive bonus to the ships versatility, and like I said if you haven't spent a ton of time in lawless combat you won't understand that. The change increases the target pool to larger ships. While using an AB fit you ever tried catching a Cruiser that doesn't want to be caught? Good luck. At the same level, have you tried the same with an MWD fit AF? It's suicide.

As for countering neuts, a small nos does just fine. I suggest training up your cap/nos skills if you don't find it's sufficient.

@Hirana
If an AF dies to a Destroyer it's because the Destroyer was fit to counter support (as intended).
The new AFs can barely deal with a single Destroyer. Your mention of them being able to handle 2-3 of them (assuming fit normally and not some awful proxyy tank) made me choke on my drink. 2-3? What the hell have you been smoking lmao


I had a long post but the forum ate it. Then I got bored with trying to explain PVP to a 0.0 ganker.


MWD bonus on AF = overpowered against smaller ships (dessies included) Against larger ships, they are unable to scram tackle, and are beaten by inties for long pointing.

Please come to a FW area for your next bout of PVP. I am pretty sure Hirana or one of the other FW vets will teach you a few humbling lessons.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#448 - 2012-01-10 12:52:43 UTC
Arty Thrasher:

High:
250mm II x 7
Named Nuet
Mid:
AB II
Regolith MSE
Named Scrambler
Low:
Gyro II
DC II
Rigs:
Ancilarry x 2
Projectile Collision

6.93k EHP. 1329 Alpha. 285 DPS. I ran around SISSI with this just to see if arty Thrashers - my favorite - were obsolete. I won the majority of my fights against AF. At one point I got an ishkur and an enyo down back to back.

Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#449 - 2012-01-10 13:13:47 UTC
Bengal Bob wrote:
Please come to a FW area for your next bout of PVP. I am pretty sure Hirana or one of the other FW vets will teach you a few humbling lessons.

Protip: look at his killboard and typical number of involved parties before making silly comments.
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#450 - 2012-01-10 14:06:28 UTC
Yes, look at my stats why don't you .. isn't the whole assuming/demanding everyone posts with primary character getting a little old?

@Zarnak: You should try using a trick that was pulled against me, have MWD but throttle speed to "look like" its AB fit. You retain all the oomph of the MWD plus get all the fights that normally avoid MWD fits Smile
Garmon
Gods Holy Light Bringing You're Penance
#451 - 2012-01-10 14:38:52 UTC
Bengal Bob wrote:


I had a long post but the forum ate it. Then I got bored with trying to explain PVP to a 0.0 ganker.


MWD bonus on AF = overpowered against smaller ships (dessies included) Against larger ships, they are unable to scram tackle, and are beaten by inties for long pointing.

Please come to a FW area for your next bout of PVP. I am pretty sure Hirana or one of the other FW vets will teach you a few humbling lessons.


....Are you trolling are you really that stupid? LolLol
I like Duncan
Fidelium Mortis
Minor Major Miners LLC
#452 - 2012-01-10 15:18:22 UTC
Tried a few fits last night on SISI and was pretty pleased with the change overall. Inties will still retain their role as the specialized tackler while an AF can fill a slightly slower/heavier role. The new bonuses leave a pretty substantial amount of room for versatility which should mix combat up a bit.

ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon
Wensley
Matari Exodus
#453 - 2012-01-10 15:50:55 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Once again I will bring up HACs.
No T1* cruiser will ever beat a HAC unless the HAC is poorly fit or poorly flown.
HACs are (roughly) on par with their race of BC.
**not including faction**

The same applies for AFs.
No T1* frigate will ever beat an AF unless the AF is poorly fit or poorly flown.
AFs are (roughly) on par with their race of Cruiser.
**not including faction**


Prom, I wish you would stop doing this. By your logic AFs should be (roughly) on par with their race of destroyer. Destroyers are to frigates what battlecruisers are to cruisers. Please stop using this terrible argument to support a slightly too strong boost quite so vehemently.
Jaxemont
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#454 - 2012-01-10 16:24:31 UTC
How about the AF’s 4th bonus is something like “15% reduction in opponent Neut amount per level”? It will help in making the AF more viable against cruisers and battlecruisers because it can turn an opponent’s 2 staggered medium neuts to effectively 1 small neut. This makes them nice heavy tackle since they get into scram/neut range (something fleet inty pilots dread), but the AFs still have to worry about drones and guns due to their low speed.

It shouldn’t affect AF engagement envelope against other frigs too much (then again I don’t know how important a neut is when flying a faction frig versus an AF). The main problem would be the vengeance having the 5% capacitor recharge rate along with the anti-neut bonus. That would certainly make it OP, so maybe give it a different bonus? Perhaps to rockets?

(This bonus shouldn’t work against NOS, though. Enemy NOS does not get the 15% reduction per level.)

Just an idea on how to make AFs better versus cruisers, but still make them engageable in other frigs.

(Didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if this was already thought of or shot down.)
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#455 - 2012-01-10 16:26:53 UTC
Jaxemont wrote:
How about the AF’s 4th bonus is something like “15% reduction in opponent Neut amount per level”? It will help in making the AF more viable against cruisers and battlecruisers because it can turn an opponent’s 2 staggered medium neuts to effectively 1 small neut.


This would make (most) AFs solopwonmobiles against cruisers and above. Also, the Hurricane is the outlier with its two neuts, not the norm. Many cruiser hulls can only fit a small neut as frigate defense.
placeholder Zateki
Freehold Fleet
#456 - 2012-01-10 16:38:25 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:

You're trying to tell me that there is already a heavy tanking / high dps frigate that suits my needs?


Suiting your needs is not the job of an assault frigate, I'm sorry to tell you.

Prometheus Exenthal wrote:

Any arguments against the changes are founded in hyperbole and powered by fear-mongering... I'll be sitting here waiting to disprove it happily.


Doesn't sound like you are biased at all.

Prom, you really are letting us all down. Personally, I think it is great you got CCP to look at AFs and make changes, but you are being a complete tool with regards to feedback on these changes. The people who have posted here ARE the players, you cannot ignore all of them, yet with this statement you have basically said that you will.

Anyone that argues against the changes you insult them, ignore the points they bring up, tout the same numbers from that same ships, say everything is "fine" and then reiterate how your changes are the best thing ever and we will just have to accept them.

These changes are not going to fix these ships, regardless of what you think, if the majority of the (unique) posters in this thread (and I counted, it is a majority) are indifferent or opposed, how is that an improvement?

I'm not trying to attack you, as you have been attacking everyone who disagrees with you (and even those who agree with you at one point) but you really need to wake up. You are a CSm alternate, YOU represent US, not force us into agreeing with you.
Plutonian
Intransigent
#457 - 2012-01-10 17:02:48 UTC
I'm going to weigh in on this one more time, then I'll let it go. But since Prom seems not to care, I'm going to address this directly to CCP Tallest (My Tallest! My Tallest!!! My Talleeeesssttt!!).

I resist the proposed changes in their current form for two reasons; 1.) they are the textbook definition of power-creep, and 2.) given the irrational behavior of Prometheus, I cannot believe he, the admitted author of the changes, does not have a personal vested interest which renders the changes suspect (at best) or simply overpowered (at worst).

Non-Thrasher destroyers needed some love; the entire class was buffed. AF needed a bit of oomph; now across-the-board buffs are proposed. Hopefully, next it will be T1 frigates; eventually someone will realize they need a buff to stay competitive in any way (and currently only four or five are typically flown in combat these days) .

Don't get me wrong: power creep is far better than stagnation. But, to be perfectly honest, these changes seem 'klutzy'. Driving a nail with a sledgehammer. Targeted 'fixes' on a ship by ship basis will do far more to encourage fun gameplay than buffs-across-the-board.

The MWD bonus seems fine.
Extra slots on Retribution have been needed for a long time.

What Prometheus (and some others) cannot understand is that no ship exists in a vacuum (not to be taken literally). Changes to a single ship type affect the ships that fly around them. If the Rifter wasn't the king of T1 frigates, you'd see more Breechers out there.

Forever 'setting the bar higher' was the tactic of the old arcade games. They didn't have the resources to create good balance. Eve exists at a time when that balance strategy could be better.

In the last two months, solo PvP'ing across two combat-oriented zones (Hevrice to OMS, Amamake area) with two different characters, I have suffered a security status drop only twice. Why? The people flying T1 frigs were either Tuskers (who down-ship for Rifters as corp policy) or Black Rebel Rifter Club (who attract the few remaining Rifter pilots).

Perhaps I'm just unlucky. Maybe as soon as I log off the skies fill with T1 frigates (which I've darkly suspected from time to time). But I cannot shake the feeling that good ole T1 frigate combat in low-sec is sick... and getting worse. A previous poster mentioned that since the whole Dramiel incident interceptor populations have been slow to rebound. This is true, and doubly so for the T1 frigates.

So, if power creep is to be the plan of the day, please look at rebalancing the T1 frigs in the future.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#458 - 2012-01-10 17:10:02 UTC
Plutonian wrote:
I resist the proposed changes in their current form for two reasons; 1.) they are the textbook definition of power-creep


The frigate class as a whole needs to be brought up a level because it doesn't play enough of a role in the game. Might as well start with AFs.

There is nothing strange with AFs being just plain better than T1 ships. Faction frigates are certainly going to become less common - though you have to admit, it was odd that faction frigates were more common than T2 frigates of all types.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#459 - 2012-01-10 18:25:07 UTC
(Empire) Faction frigates are already well-balanced compared to assault frigates. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose - depending on the fittings, tactics, skills. This proposed buff will put assault frigs over the top.

AF's should work better in groups, fleets, and not so well solo. Please don't add any more midslots to these ships (except perhaps the retribution) as it will make them solowtfpwnmobiles. It'd bad enough trying to engage 5-midslot hookbills. Engaging a 5-midslot caldari AF will be nearly impossible.
placeholder Zateki
Freehold Fleet
#460 - 2012-01-10 20:10:38 UTC  |  Edited by: placeholder Zateki
X Gallentius wrote:

AF's should work better in groups, fleets, and not so well solo.


I think nearly every current AF pilot would disagree with you.

AFs are MADE (nearly perfectly) to be solo or small gang ships.