Test Server Feedback

EDIT:

For amusment purposes ONLY:

Lows: DCU II, SPR II x2
Mids: AB (named), t2 scram, 2x MSE II
Highs: 125mm AC II x 4

Rigs: EM screen + CDFP
Booster alt: max skill tengu w/ t2 shield harm. link +siege implant

EHP: 31.4k (vs. gate gun profile)
Tank: 322dps (gategun profile)
gank: 98dps

Price: ~29mil (according to pyfa about 5min ago)
lolworthiness: priceless

While the majority of PvP occurs in nullsec, the majority of subcap warfare I would argue takes place in lowsec. Lowsec is where those that specifically choose to avoid the broken nature of cap warfare live and look for fights. Lowsec is the home of the pirate alliances - those that make a living off mastering small-scale warfare. Lowsec is home to Faction Warfare - a dead "feature" but an active community of PvPers who have stuck together, fighting each other every day and honing their skills, living for the fight.

There might be some raw numbers that tip the scale in nullsec's favor, but I think your average lowsec PvPer is far more experienced with the nuances of ship-to-ship fighting than those in nullsec, who may be more accustomed to large fleets that are FC-dependent. Lowsec gangs are more like wolf-packs, where every wolf is an alpha who may need to take charge of the gang once he tackles something.

The old pattern of players being "born" in Empire but ineviteably drifting to "endgame" nullsec no longer applies to much of EvE, many of us have made lowsec our home and have no intention of moving to nullsec, mainly because we prefer this kind of small-gang warfare over the boredom of going through a BS or carrier primary list in alphabetical order, playing grid-fu, etc.

I think its more the divisive language you are using Prometheus, than the points you are making. The MWD bonus is sound, it helps the AF in its job as a *heavy* tackle, because you rightfully point out that interceptors are NOT designed for extended survival in web/scram range, and AF's are poised to fill this hole quite well.

However, all the other cumulative bonuses do indeed push AF's to the top of the new food chain. The one balancing factor they had - lack of tracking - is now gone. They DID serve their purpose as heavy tacklers, but other frigates still had advantages in a dogfight. Sadly, now they do not.

I support the MWD bonus, and tank bonuses, even the slot bonuses if we must (though whoever says you need a tackle mod on a Retribution is full of **** - I've known far too many pilots who have gotten solo kills in them, believe it or not).

What I think is broken is the tracking. Other frigates should maintain *SOME* small balancing edge over the AF's, and AF's currently have tracking that is perfectly capable of applying DPS to larger targets as designed.

AF's don't need to be the ultimate frig-killers. We have destroyers, and the combat interceptors for that. I agree with Stukkler that the sum total of these bonuses imbalances lowsec warfare in a way that nullsec players might not be sensitive to. We can boost their tank and speed without making them the new God-mode in frig-to-frig combat.

My guess though is that as close as we are to Jan 24, all this talk is more or less pointless - if CCP were going to change or pare back the boosts, they would have stepped in and said so by now. I take their silence to mean this is what we have to accept whether we all like it or not.

Once you get out of the niche of low-sec, frigate combat is really on life support. And there are many reasons for that. Some are economic and related to isk generation. People have created high-sec alts to run Incursions and don't rat in null. . Botting is prevalent throughout nullsec as well. If you enter the system the ship automatically warps to a safe spot and cloaks. Both of those factors make it hard for small roaming bands to go out and catch ratters like the old days. And consequently - the need for the hero tackle is gone too.

Other factors are through buffs. Pulse lasers and AC are currently very popular. Both just about always use Tracking Enhancers. Both had their tracking buffed at some point in time. And both murder even small interceptors trying to tackle from that 25km - 30km range. Most fits have nuets for scram range combat. That makes it tremendously hard to get under a HAC or BC guns and apply a tackle. Blasters, which are slowly coming back, just got a 20% tracking buff too. You are damned at range. You are damned up close.

So let's talk about Interceptors. They have half the raw hit points of AF. They have none of the T2 resists. They're fast - but not fast enough to evade incoming fire. Hence the popularity of the Dramiel which was much faster then them with more EHP and firepower as well. Soooooo - Give interceptors 75% of the AF's hit points. Give them T2 resists. Increase their speed with a MWD by about 500m/s. Go ship to ship and adjust fittings as needed. I'm looking at you Raptor. A little more sexy now, right?

Now what would have happened if CCP Tallest had come out and started an interceptor buff first? We'd have many of the same faces yelling that low-sec combat would be unbalanced. Many would be angry that AF and EAF hadn't been looked at first. Many would decry a nullsec buff at lowsec expense.

The game has to change. We can't be so attached to our current low-sec lifestyle that everything is opposed on general principal. Some bitterly opposed the proposed booster changes. They got them put on hold. Maybe they were right. Maybe they were wrong. But I guarantee you it's on the back burner for 2+ years now. Lowsec is 8% of the game's population. Are you happy with that? I'm not.

It's more 'just say no' Republicans. But bringing up politics is bad form.

8% is a dodgy statistic that came from one of the last QENs.

another dodgy statistic: low sec accounts for ~25% of all PvP related ship explosions (from the "you guys like blowing stuff up" dev blog).

lol yeah it is bad form but I just recieved a robo-call to that effect while I was reading your post. My point is that it makes great rhetoric and pretty crappy logic all at the same time.

As for boosting inty speed I dont see it making a huge difference in the number of inties that are employed tbh. The decline in interceptor use is way more complicated than tracking buffs and ratters getting smarter (they dont all have to be bots). And many of the reasons have nothing to do with how fast they are or are not, so moar speed doesnt necessarily help.

We should save this for a BUFF INTERCEPTOR!!!1111 thread though.

Now 8% of the population getting 25% of the PvP kills, THAT sounds about right to me, based on the type of PvP-er and level of aggressive behavior that I see in lowsec. But to be fair, I live next to Amamake, which is a bit of a hotspot.

But regardless of the accuracy of statistics or not, we should all be arguing about the mechanics changes on their own merit, not trying to sift out whether the person's comments are valid because they live and play in one section of the game or another. All three areas of the game have major issues breaking core mechanics, so carebears end up in nullsec, and PvPers come to gank in highsec, its all one big cesspool now.

It shouldn't matter where someone's coming from if they have a good / bad argument.

People spend far more time worrying about the group someone belongs to, and making assumptions about bias that may or may not be behind a statement, than we do actually listening to what each other has to say. This whole low vs high, null vs low, high vs null stuff is really counterproductive in the end.

Statements like "all these players are from ______ so we all know what they are after" or "all these complainers are mad because they have invested isk in _______" keep making me facepalm. They are usually inaccurate, and often say more about the person using them than they do about subject at hand.

My take on interceptors:

1) T2 resists: yes, more hitpoints: yes.
2) What they really need is higher base locking range. Current values are not adequate given their speed and the possible range on warp disruptors.
3) Tackler intys are really good at holding a point with a warp disruptor but not good with a scrambler. Let's make them better with a scrambler: the 5% bonus to warp disruptor and scrambler optimal is split into a 5% warp disruptor optimal and +15% warp scrambler optimal bonus. That gives us the following optimals for a Warp Scrambler II
Max skills: 15750. Too close to overloaded web range to be safe, but still a nice improvement as it's clearly out of regular scram range.
Max skills+overloaded: 18900.
Max skills+maxed T2 gang link: 22881
Max skills+maxed T2 gang link+overloaded: 27457.
4) More fitting on combat interceptors. I don't want combat interceptors to tread on AF territory though like the Taranis has done for years. A proper distinction of roles should be maintained.

I'd keep the current split but repurpose the combat inties. Current tackle inties are fine far what they do (ok some lock range buf would help).

Give the combat inties close range survival bonuses and scram bonuses.

Another dodgy statistic: FW "militias alliances" alone would occupy three of the top 10 alliances in kills according to eve-kill.net. Add in RvB and now you have half of the "Top 10" alliances in kills not in 0.0.

Heavens forbid that the community that uses assault frigs the most comment on what they think will occur when assault frigs are buffed.

Did the one CSM guy who posts here ever consider that HIS perspective is limited, and that he doesn't see the big picture? Perhaps he ought to really listen to everybody here before grinding his axe so hard.