These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#861 - 2012-01-16 22:25:10 UTC
Quote:
Than I say stick to the original concept. CCP should be taking their time with these tweaks, so they dont rush out a set of balances just to appease all that have demanded AF balancing, if it means leaving them further away from the original design intent.


I would also like to add that it would help if CCP came forward and shared their vision of what AFs are supposed to be with us. This helps us testers run the appropriate tests.

It's a good guess that they're the supposed to be the frigate equivalent of HACs - but what does that mean exactly?

Up to what fleet size are they supposed to remain useful?

What are their preferred targets supposed to be?

Or are they a nonspecialized heavy combat frigate?

Answering these questions helps us understand to which extent AFs are currently succeeding on Tranquility.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#862 - 2012-01-16 22:36:27 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:

I would also like to add that it would help if CCP came forward and shared their vision of what AFs are supposed to be with us. This helps us testers run the appropriate tests.

It's a good guess that they're the supposed to be the frigate equivalent of HACs - but what does that mean exactly?

Up to what fleet size are they supposed to remain useful?

What are their preferred targets supposed to be?

Or are they a nonspecialized heavy combat frigate?

Answering these questions helps us understand to which extent AFs are currently succeeding on Tranquility.


This sounds scarily like where we're at with Faction Warfare - we've heard a couple suggestions from CCP, but they still leave us completely in the dark as to where THEY want to see this go, and WHY they are going with the current plan instead of addressing the heaps of controversy its creating at the same time.

The Faction Warfare community keeps spinning its wheels and rehashing old arguments because we don't have anything more specific from CCP in regards to what to address.

With AF's, we're talking balancing tweaks - with FW, we're talking potentially major sweeping changes (alliances) - but the issue is the same: CCP releases a change, threadnoughts ensue, CCP doesnt respond, and the players are left wondering if they're listening or not.

I'm not trying to be too hard on CCP, I've been impressed with most of Crucible, but given their supposed change in company direction its a shame we're not seeing more of a dialogue here - instead of some bombs dropped and than a cloud of smoke instead of some clear follow-up from the developers as to their thought process and plans.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#863 - 2012-01-16 22:47:01 UTC
Much of the WTF has come from the same group of people posting over and over, sometimes on different accounts to give the impression of more people (ie: proxyyyy). They're also all empire dwellers, so that doesn't come as a surprise.
For every person with a complaint, there are people praising the changes. Not necessarily in this thread, largely because this isn't the only source of feedback.

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#864 - 2012-01-17 00:16:43 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Much of the WTF has come from the same group of people posting over and over, sometimes on different accounts to give the impression of more people (ie: proxyyyy). They're also all empire dwellers, so that doesn't come as a surprise.
For every person with a complaint, there are people praising the changes. Not necessarily in this thread, largely because this isn't the only source of feedback.



Well, to be fair, I'm skimming through the first half a dozen pages of this thread, and I'm already up to about 25 individuals (at very least could be more they're just not all posting corps) who are non-Empire dwellers, nullsec Alliance members in fact - and at least a dozen fellow goons like yourself that all oppose the change or have various concerns. 6, out of 44 pages.

Trying to marginalize feedback based on geography ultimately isn't going to carry much weight here, nor is chalking it all up to "the alt effect". Don't get me wrong - I've been in those threads where it IS clearly the same person hiding behind alts, but in this thread there is strong concern right from the beginning, from nullsec dwellers, alliance members, and goons alike. Many of us who have PvP'ed in these ships have contributed here - this is not another thread that has been hijacked by thase that simply fear another ganking tool. Not all of the feedback is even about the strength of the boosts or them being too powerful, a lot of it revolves around balancing and the design role for Assault ships in general and whether they fit that role after the changes.

I'm sure i'm not the only one here who is getting bored with all the half-baked accusations of "nullbear", "carebear", "ganker" etc. These are just labels we ultimately end up using to stereotype and divide, that bear little relevancy to the legitimacy of a poster's complaint. The minute "carebears" start crying about how all of nullsec is out see them wiped from the game, or the minute nullsec PvPers start calling anyone who disagrees with them an "empire dweller" or "carebear" (implying there's something wrong with living in that part of the game) they begin losing respect, except amongst those that share their need to put people into arbitrary categories based on geography instead of skill and cast judgement accordingly.

This is 2012. We're all expected to get to know each other as individuals in real life, making assumptions and conclusions based on race, gender, etc are no longer socially acceptable, if the goal here is to actually contribute to meaningful game changes we have to learn to drop the divisive language and listen to each other regardless of where we live.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#865 - 2012-01-17 00:24:39 UTC
Delusional (tell those voices in your head to STFU). I only use one character for the forums and another by mistake.

Alot of pilots who use assault frigate. Which is primary in low security space. Are expressing their dislike of these changes. Almost none of them agree with my arguments towards Interceptor. Something I seem mainly alone in. Not a big deal to me. I express those views because most other pilots have been covering all the other issues with these changes.

I recently made a comparison between micro-warp drive and afterburner. I listened to another pilots point of view on the subject and I believe he's correct. There is not much difference between these changes and doing a 50% increase to afterburners velocity. Other than the fact. Warp scramblers disable micro-warp drive. I don't fully agree with having a bonus towards afterburners. However, what some pilots have been suggesting. Makes sense.

With regard to the Wolf and Jaguar. I remember when I use to take alot of sh!t (ships & module). Implying a Wolf was superior to a Jaguar within warp scrambler range. Now it's gospel. Those ships do mirror the Muninn and Vagabond. However, bonuses and slot layout limit both ships. This is what CCP would have to do to change that.

Jaguar

Falloff bonus and no tracking bonus.

- 3 high-slots
- 5 mid slots
- 3 low slots

This would allow complete range control within frigate engagement range (Similar to the Vagabond versus other Heavy assault cruisers). The ship would either be able to use dual propulsion or dual stasis webifier.


Wolf

Optimal range and tracking bonus (24+increase in power-grid)

- 4 high-slots
- 3 mid slots
- 3 low slots

Enable the ship to use a stasis webifier or fit a medium shield extender.

Not that I'm for doing something like this. Currently, the Wolf is like a Vagabond and the Jaguar is like a Muninn.

-proxyyyy
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#866 - 2012-01-17 01:08:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
5 mids on a fast frigate with a damage bonus, tracking bonus and no actual need for said 5th mid, is overpowered.
Even 4 mids is extremely powerful, and allows the Jag to use ewar if it chooses to.

The problem with adding any slots is that you need to increase the fitting requirements.
Shield modules require higher fitting requirements than armor modules.
If the ship were INTENDED to be a shield ship with 5 mids, it would need much higher fitting which opens the door to armor tanks that benefit from extremely powerful ewar in the mids. This is bad.

These are all reasons why turning the Wolf into Muninn, & Jag into a Vagabond, are bad ideas.
The new Wolf is quite good, and the new Jag simply needs more fitting. That's it.

The only reason the Hawk gets away with the 5 mids is because it's a missile ship with an active shield boosting bonus and 2 lows. It needs a web to apply damage and it needs mids to tank.

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#867 - 2012-01-17 01:31:05 UTC
Gempei wrote:
ArrowHawk - remove 7.5% bonus to Shield Boost Amount per level and add 5% / 7,5% shield resistance


This.

It's simply not a very attractive bonus. Change it to a resists bonus and turn the Hawk into a tough, tanky lil bastard.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#868 - 2012-01-17 01:59:27 UTC
I support the changes. Some tweaking - such as the jag's fitting - is needed. But as a whole the class feels more balanced with itself and much mote capable of big game hunting.

Frigates as a whole need to be raised. EAF. Interceptor's frailty. The tier system. TE and the prevalence of nuets makes for a hostile environment. Whichever part of the tapestry is picked up first will appear OP. That doesn't mean no action should be taken.
Khrage
#869 - 2012-01-17 02:46:46 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I support the changes. Some tweaking - such as the jag's fitting - is needed. But as a whole the class feels more balanced with itself and much mote capable of big game hunting.

Frigates as a whole need to be raised. ArrowEAF. Interceptor's frailty. The tier system. TE and the prevalence of nuets makes for a hostile environment. Whichever part of the tapestry is picked up first will appear OP. That doesn't mean no action should be taken.


second this completely. highlighted additional part too :)
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#870 - 2012-01-17 02:52:57 UTC
Salpad wrote:
Gempei wrote:
ArrowHawk - remove 7.5% bonus to Shield Boost Amount per level and add 5% / 7,5% shield resistance


This.

It's simply not a very attractive bonus. Change it to a resists bonus and turn the Hawk into a tough, tanky lil bastard.


The problem isn't the bonus, it's shield boosters. They eat infinite cap and are stupidly hard to fit.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#871 - 2012-01-17 05:41:36 UTC
wat.
I dont think many people are having issues fitting the Hawk

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Bent Barrel
#872 - 2012-01-17 08:17:21 UTC
Kalaratiri wrote:
Bent Barrel wrote:
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
They'd still remain slower than cruisers, and therefore useless for most cases, and overpowered in the rest.


Just a simple Q. How is the cruiser going to be faster with a scrambler on him ? I mean you cannot go fast without a working MWD.


The problem here is getting the scram on the cruiser. For example, a rupture with an mwd and a plate will be doing about 1200m/s depending on skills. In comparison, a Jaguar, the fastest AF, does a little over 1000m/s with a t2 afterburner. Unless the Jag lands right on top of the rupture, he will have to chase it, and while it's not impossible for him to get the scram, the rupture pilot will have plenty of opportunity to string him out and tear him to pieces.

So, while the Jaguar may well be able to get a scram on the rupture if he lands nearby, starting at any range outside of scram range, things will go badly for the Jag pilot. Things aren't exactly easy for him even if he does get the point. Most armor ruptures have a web, and one or two small neuts. You see the problem Smile


I see the problem. But do you have to do so ? I mean it was already stated that catching the ship is the interceptor role and not the AF. So I don't actualy understand the point of the dicsussion.

You see the MWD bonus is there to catch up with the target. However it is also repeatedly stated that this is the role if the interceptor. Some things need to be stated clearly or else the discussion does not make sense.
Bent Barrel
#873 - 2012-01-17 08:33:22 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
Bent Barrel wrote:
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
They'd still remain slower than cruisers, and therefore useless for most cases, and overpowered in the rest.
Just a simple Q. How is the cruiser going to be faster with a scrambler on him ? I mean you cannot go fast without a working MWD.

Overall I like the changes, because I'll profit on the inflated AF prices and my Ishkur use will not be affected by them in any way. Other than that, the MWD bonus just adds a requirement to use a module that heavily taxes an already vulnerable frigate capacitor.

Add a cap penalty reduction to the MWD bonus and I am completely fine with the changes.

The fits that were posted were MWD fit with only a scram, & injector with no web. Any cruiser that has a web/scram against that AF is faster. And for the MWD bonus, nobody is being forced to fit an AB. The Empire folk will continue to fit ABs to their setups, but AFs will now be usable outside the padded cell that is low-sec.




Wait .... you are stating:

1. speed and catching ships is the Interceptor role. They have bonuses to do so (scram range, signature etc.)
2. AF are supposed to catch and keep with their prey and that's why they get the MWD bonus
3. AFs are NOT supposed to take over Interceptor roles

How does this make a consistent picture ?

If AFs are supposed to HOLD the ship down and apply some damage, they don't need to be the first tackle. Secondary tackle has an easier role in that the target is already slowed down by the Interceptor thus no MWD bonus is needed. However the AF still needs to survive in range of a larger ship, most probably neuted/nosed and webed.

This you can accomplish by:

1. energy warfare imunities/bonuses or capacitor bonuses
2. tracking evasion either by signature or speed (or a combination of both): your MWD bonus or an AB bonus
3. web imunity, warp scrambler imunity (no MWD shutdown)

and other possible means ...

A damage/combat platform does not need to be fast. Do you expect Cruisers to tackle BS and survive the approach ? I hope not. Do you think dessies should be able to ?

The AB bonus while not the best idea is still better than the MWD bonus. Fitting the MWD will lower the survivability of the AF in exchange for gaining a big and slow interceptor. Neuts still hurt, dual webs still hurt and the only option is a buffer tank since cap is hindered by the MWD.

But I don't care. You don't seem to be willing to listen to any feedback.

Also how did you test ? Any zerosec typical roam gang or similar ? Or only AF vs single ships ? I bet the later is the more common scenario.
Hidden Snake
Inglorious-Basterds
#874 - 2012-01-17 08:56:29 UTC
well i think all moarners missing one important change ... slots ...

I have now very serious meeeting with my Enyos in hangar (dust cleaning). Together with rail changes I think we will have decent party incomming.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#875 - 2012-01-17 08:58:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
I think you're a bit lost.

Interceptors don't prevent targets from moving about.
You can have a target pointed @ 25km, but there is nothing preventing that target from burning around.
And if you're going to imply that an Interceptor is expected to go in scramble range and HOLD a target while the gang shows up, you are mistaken Lol

Immunity of any kind is a bad idea, and that's how you're guaranteed to create imbalances.
1. Energy Warfare Immunity or blanket cap bonuses would ensure that AFs cannot be shaken from targets. Bad Idea.
2. MWD evasion implies that they don't get shut down in scramble range, and that ABs are actually fast enough to get there.
3. Web immunity insures that every ship loses its first line of defense against AFs, and scrambler immunity doesn't solve the initial problem of AFs being extremely fat.

Cruisers aren't intended to go toe to toe with Battleships, and Destroyers are an anti-support class, designed solely to take on frigates not Cruisers.

The proposed Role Bonus allows the AFs to move about a battlefield, or across lawless regions of space, without being tarred and feathered for being bad ships. They are simply too fragile, too slow, and too fat to move about without incurring massive amounts of damage, rendering them useless outside of Empire.

The AB bonus is a faulted idea because it removes much of the risk of flying an AF while dramatically increasing the risk of flying anything BUT an AF. If you're fast enough to catch a Cruiser with an AB, you're fast enough to mitigate most missile damage, and nearly all turret damage once you're in scramble range. Not every ships can fit a neut, and even fewer can fit dual webs. This problem becomes even greater when you scale up against Battleships.

This has already been tested and discussed and you deserve to be lambasted for ignoring such a major discussion.
It's one thing to dislike me, it's another to completely ignore what's been stated several times over in numerous threads (including this one), tests, and developments.

You don't have to agree with me, but if you're going to make suggestions try not to make such ignorant ones.

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

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT
Bent Barrel
#876 - 2012-01-17 09:22:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Bent Barrel
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
I think you're a bit lost.

Interceptors don't prevent targets from moving about.
You can have a target pointed @ 25km, but there is nothing preventing that target from burning around.
And if you're going to imply that an Interceptor is expected to go in scramble range and HOLD a target while the gang shows up, you are mistaken Lol

Immunity of any kind is a bad idea, and that's how you're guaranteed to create imbalances.
1. Energy Warfare Immunity or blanket cap bonuses would ensure that AFs cannot be shaken from targets. Bad Idea.
2. MWD evasion implies that they don't get shut down in scramble range, and that ABs are actually fast enough to get there.
3. Web immunity insures that every ship loses its first line of defense against AFs, and scrambler immunity doesn't solve the initial problem of AFs being extremely fat.

Cruisers aren't intended to go toe to toe with Battleships, and Destroyers are an anti-support class, designed solely to take on frigates not Cruisers.

The proposed Role Bonus allows the AFs to move about a battlefield, or across lawless regions of space, without being tarred and feathered for being bad ships. They are simply too fragile, too slow, and too fat to move about without incurring massive amounts of damage, rendering them useless outside of Empire.

The AB bonus is a faulted idea because it removes much of the risk of flying an AF while dramatically increasing the risk of flying anything BUT an AF. If you're fast enough to catch a Cruiser with an AB, you're fast enough to mitigate most missile damage, and nearly all turret damage once you're in scramble range. Not every ships can fit a neut, and even fewer can fit dual webs. This problem becomes even greater when you scale up against Battleships.

This has already been tested and discussed and you deserve to be lambasted for ignoring such a major discussion.
It's one thing to dislike me, it's another to completely ignore what's been stated several times over in numerous threads (including this one), tests, and developments.

You don't have to agree with me, but if you're going to make suggestions try not to make such ignorant ones.


What is your envisioned ROLE for the AF ? Not what you want to use it for but the general role. The MWD bonus enables only one: tackler. That role is already taken.

EDIT: didn't read properlyt

Quote:

The proposed Role Bonus allows the AFs to move about a battlefield, or across lawless regions of space, without being tarred and feathered for being bad ships. They are simply too fragile, too slow, and too fat to move about without incurring massive amounts of damage, rendering them useless outside of Empire.


How comes ? They still remain too slow and fragile except the Minmatar ones. They are as slow as dessies on turng/align/warp. Much slower than t1 frigates. the MWD does add additional mass to make it worse.

I'd like to see you test actual bubble camp escape (a competent one) with the MWD bonus. I don't think it will help much. A t1 frig will do the same.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#877 - 2012-01-17 09:36:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Bent Barrel wrote:
What is your envisioned ROLE for the AF ? Not what you want to use it for but the general role. The MWD bonus enables only one: tackler. That role is already taken.


A good tackler needs speed, agility, cap stability, low signature radius, scan resolution, targeting range, warp speed. Interceptors are better than AFs in all of these areas except for targeting range. In the important areas they are at least twice as good. They can also warp disrupt from 36km with proper skills. These differences are immediately apparent when flying both classes.

You're very much mistaken in assuming that a MWD bloom reduction ONLY enables a tackler role. It enables them to do several things, most importantly to avoid taking full damage from cruiser and larger hulls while closing in to their target. Interceptors are still vastly better at avoiding fire from cruisers and larger hulls, by a factor of four if I'm not mistaken.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#878 - 2012-01-17 09:58:41 UTC  |  Edited by: m0cking bird
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
I support the changes. Some tweaking - such as the jag's fitting - is needed. But as a whole the class feels more balanced with itself and much mote capable of big game hunting.

Frigates as a whole need to be raised. EAF. Interceptor's frailty. The tier system. TE and the prevalence of nuets makes for a hostile environment. Whichever part of the tapestry is picked up first will appear OP. That doesn't mean no action should be taken.



Well, that makes sense. Especially knowing CCP would make changes to Interceptor. However, unforeseen consequences... Now, you believe you know what CCP will do. Based on CCP's statements. Interceptors, are not on their radar. Assault frigates are already very viable against larger vessels. So, this whole "big game hunting" thing is already possible. Neutralisers, have been the only reason cruisers, battle-cruisers and battleships. Have not seen many more loss mail.Tracking enhancer changes, have had alot of unintended consequences. Minimal iteration, would be the best way to go. Any-time CCP has attempted to make significant changes (projectiles). So, many other things go wrong.

Rail-gun and blaster have been improved, with minimal changes. However, ships limited to close range engagement have become outmoded. Interceptors are becoming outmoded. That has alot to do with faction frigates (Dramiel, Daredevil, Federation Navy Comet, Imperial Navy Slicer). Faction ships with Interceptor velocity and even more damage. Assault ships have more damage and defences. Naturally, pilots have been gravitating to more survivable ships in our current environment.

Anyway.

Frigates should not overcome neutralisers in anyway. There has to be some way for a cruiser or larger ship to counter smaller vessels. Drones are not always enough.


-proxyyyy
Bent Barrel
#879 - 2012-01-17 10:17:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bent Barrel
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Bent Barrel wrote:
What is your envisioned ROLE for the AF ? Not what you want to use it for but the general role. The MWD bonus enables only one: tackler. That role is already taken.


A good tackler needs speed, agility, cap stability, low signature radius, scan resolution, targeting range, warp speed. Interceptors are better than AFs in all of these areas except for targeting range. In the important areas they are at least twice as good. They can also warp disrupt from 36km with proper skills. These differences are immediately apparent when flying both classes.

You're very much mistaken in assuming that a MWD bloom reduction ONLY enables a tackler role. It enables them to do several things, most importantly to avoid taking full damage from cruiser and larger hulls while closing in to their target. Interceptors are still vastly better at avoiding fire from cruisers and larger hulls, by a factor of four if I'm not mistaken.


the bonus will takes them down to cruiser guns sig resolution with MWD active. so no gain here. sure they are faster, but approach while maintaining transversal is slow (spiral). sure they will take less fire from battleships, but an AB is enough for them to catch battleships as it is now while taking less damage from cruiser guns.

the bonus only enables marginal gain while getting out of bubbles. nothing else in practical terms.

you see the only problem is MWD nano cruiser speed vs frigate speed. if you want to make a niche for heavy frigates, you have to move gun tracking further apart between gun classes (tracking speed). this is no simple solution.

EDIT: I remembered an old blog with goals stated regarding speed. found it:

speed rebalanced

It was the nano craze and this was a result of it. If you look at the stated goals, only the first one was ever achieved. The other ones were never even considered since they require the overhaul of core game mechanics. This AF change is a band aid for lack of proper base mechanics.

We still don't have meaningfull speed separation between classes.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#880 - 2012-01-17 10:18:07 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Bent Barrel wrote:
What is your envisioned ROLE for the AF ? Not what you want to use it for but the general role. The MWD bonus enables only one: tackler. That role is already taken.


A good tackler needs speed, agility, cap stability, low signature radius, scan resolution, targeting range, warp speed. Interceptors are better than AFs in all of these areas except for targeting range. In the important areas they are at least twice as good. They can also warp disrupt from 36km with proper skills. These differences are immediately apparent when flying both classes.

You're very much mistaken in assuming that a MWD bloom reduction ONLY enables a tackler role. It enables them to do several things, most importantly to avoid taking full damage from cruiser and larger hulls while closing in to their target. Interceptors are still vastly better at avoiding fire from cruisers and larger hulls, by a factor of four if I'm not mistaken.



Those are not prerequisites. Many ships fill this role (Huginn, Rapier, Lachesis, Arazu, Keres). All frigates have speed, agility, low signature radius, scan resolution, targeting range, and warp speed. When compared to destroyers, cruisers, battle-cruisers, and battleships.

When it comes to going very fast. Running away... Interceptors are 50 -100% superior. However, 24,000m and lower. Operational range of most ships. Assault ships are superior. Has to do with a combination of things. Outside of that range. Not much matters.


-proxyyyy