These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Combat frigate changes for Inferno

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#441 - 2012-06-12 02:20:00 UTC
Lunkwill Khashour wrote:

More versatile rookie ships is ineresting but if you're going to make those ships representative of a race as a whole, then you should make them available to all players, independent of race.

You can actually buy rookie frigates on the market now.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Mallory Million
Doomheim
#442 - 2012-06-12 02:21:01 UTC
Kitt JT wrote:


Actually, i think the merlin should have won just about all of those engagements. There were 2 ships with any sort of tank. Obvs a brawling dps/tank frig should be able to kill a paper-tank frig.

As far as the rifter goes, i think its good that a merlin can challenge a rifter. It could before the patch, but now it has a great chance.

And seeing as how the firetail was basically just a rifter...


The slicers were trying to kite; merlin went 5000m/s and stopped them from doing so.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#443 - 2012-06-13 18:05:33 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hey folks,

Thought it would be time for an update here. So far we are quite happy with the frigates we revamped in Inferno and we will start moving to the others soon.


What we would like to do next:


  • Keep working on frigate overhaul, as we barely started so far - that means having a look at role, slot layout of the remaining hulls and sorting them into the combat, attack, or support categories (the bombardment role was removed as feedback shown it wasn't great to start with)

  • Revamp the rookie ships to be more versatile - ideally they should offer a lot of small bonuses to show what their race philosophy is all about, without being as efficient at any tech 1 frigate in their own roles

  • Since we are removing mining frigates, introduce an ORE frigate to take over that role in general - think of it as an expendable, fast miner able to ninja-mine in hostile environments, while mining barges are more of a static mining platforms

  • Introducing an ORE frig makes us realize how painfully outdated mining barges / exhumers are in general - we want to make them all viable in some fashion and not systemically make the Hulk better at that role. That also means having a look at skill requirements, as the jump from a Covetor to a Hulk is almost non-existant (one idea it to move all mining barge skill requirements to level 1, while exhumers keep a mining barge skill requirement at 5)

  • Then move into tech 1 destroyer hulls - having a look at the existing ships and introducing 4 new toys to play with.



Thanks for your feedback people, it helped a lot for the Inferno release.


im curious to know if you intend to remove ewar bonuses from t1 hulls like griffin/scorpion (ecm) as its a specialisation skill really for t2 ships this would help make EAF's more useful as a ship class (when buffed ofc) and as cheap learner ship before cruiser recons.
And perhaps if any intention to develop t2 logi frigs also nice developer for logi cruiser as t1 logi cruisers suck/not enough bonuses/specialisation again :).












T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#444 - 2012-06-14 12:55:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Harvey James wrote:


im curious to know if you intend to remove ewar bonuses from t1 hulls like griffin/scorpion (ecm) as its a specialisation skill really for t2 ships this would help make EAF's more useful as a ship class (when buffed ofc) and as cheap learner ship before cruiser recons.
And perhaps if any intention to develop t2 logi frigs also nice developer for logi cruiser as t1 logi cruisers suck/not enough bonuses/specialisation again :).



Harvey,

Every specialization/career may be followed from the ground up in preparation to flying the T2 version, except stasis webification on the minmatar line for some reason. T1 ships can do ewar without infringing on T2.

EAFs are their own line of ewar vessels, though currently so weak that no one flies them. They are not part of the career path to Recons (either force or combat), despite their weaker bonuses to similar ewar and the connection players make with pursuing similar interests into the recons as well.

Lastly, I support logi frigs, though wonder how people will choose them over cruiser logis. These ideas both beg the questions concerning ewar and logis roles in the BS line (T1 and T2) as well. Bonuses at the BS level should probably scale the ewar and logi amounts with appropriate bonuses. For example, per level bonuses would be: 50% bonus to logi repair amount, and 50% bonus to ewar amounts at the BS level, and 30% at the T2 cruiser level for all eWar, and 20% for T2 frigs, etc with adjustments to the modules so that the bonuses bring the power of each module to a balanced level.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Grady Eltoren
Hogyoku
#445 - 2012-06-14 16:32:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Grady Eltoren
REPOSTED HERE FOR DEV ATTENTION:


There are 7 (count them SEVEN) STANDARD Frigates for EACH race.... NOT INCLUDING navy/faction varieties!! This is too many.

We should shrink that down to 5 and take 2 frigate models from each race and make them into 2 NEW destroyer hulls.
RESULT:

Total std. frigs per race = 5
Total std. Destroyers per race = 3

This would simplify the workload on the Art department.

It would also make CCP Ytterbium's (and company) job EASIER by letting them focus on 5 GOOD frigates that fit the new tiericide philosophy. Less redundency and more inline with the amount of ships in game per other tiers. (You don't see 7 Battle cruisers or cruisers do you???)

You can STILL have your brawlers, long range, ewar, missile, "you name it" varieties of the 5 frigates just like described in the dev blog with this idea.
....Just reshuffle the ships and viola.

As far as art models....If a T1 ship shares a skin with a T2 ship, just swap the skins - simple and has been done before.

Total new amount of destroyers 3 per race (just like the battlecruisers). This also makes sense as destroyers are like the smaller sized GLASS cannon's (and always have been) of the frig/cruiser size like Battlecruisers are to the Cruiser/Battleship size.

ALSO...

IDEA FOR NEW DESTROYERS ROLES - Make one for each race that is just like the Tornado, Naga, etc.... In other words...Capable of fitting MEDIUM guns whereas they can normally only fit small ones! :)

CCP - YOU KNOW YOU LOVE THIS IDEA. :)

The logic is undeniable. :)
FireT
Venom Pointe Industries
#446 - 2012-06-14 18:20:46 UTC
I am looking forward to this. It seems like an interesting balancing avalanche you and your fellow CCP staffers are working on.
I am definitely on board and can not wait to see what comes out of this.
Thank you CCP for this interesting balancing project. And have a good weekend.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#447 - 2012-06-14 18:29:00 UTC
your far too nice give them some abuse for letting t1 hulls have specialist ewar skills :P

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Mira Lynne
State War Academy
Caldari State
#448 - 2012-06-14 18:54:55 UTC
I noticed something worrying in the Dev Blog:
Quote:
Race fighting philosophy will most likely dictate engagement range


So Caldari and Probably Minmatar are shoehorned into Light Missiles while Amarr and probably Gallente are shoehorned into Rockets.
Im sorry but i cant agree with this. It kills versatility and Variety. Why shouldnt Caldari be able to Brawl with Rockets? Why shouldnt Amarr be able to Kite with light Missiles?
Keeping in mind that turret ships get bonuses that dont discriminate between long range and short range weapon systems, and
especially considering the wonderfull work CCP has done with the Merlin (A Viable Caldari Brawler, that can also Snipe!) It seems like a step backwards to shoehorn a ship into Rockets or Light Missiles - this goes for all races, not just caldari.

[u]I, too, horse frogs.[/u] Support the Return of Realistic Module Icons! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114818&find=unread
FireT
Venom Pointe Industries
#449 - 2012-06-14 19:04:45 UTC
Though I am guessing this is far too distant in the future. But if the Navitas gets the drone bonus the Ishkur will essentially be redone into that ship model?
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#450 - 2012-06-14 20:23:00 UTC
Grady Eltoren wrote:
REPOSTED HERE FOR DEV ATTENTION:


There are 7 (count them SEVEN) STANDARD Frigates for EACH race.... NOT INCLUDING navy/faction varieties!! This is too many.

We should shrink that down to 5 and take 2 frigate models from each race and make them into 2 NEW destroyer hulls.
RESULT:

Total std. frigs per race = 5
Total std. Destroyers per race = 3

...

IDEA FOR NEW DESTROYERS ROLES - Make one for each race that is just like the Tornado, Naga, etc.... In other words...Capable of fitting MEDIUM guns whereas they can normally only fit small ones! :)

CCP - YOU KNOW YOU LOVE THIS IDEA. :)

The logic is undeniable. :)


Wow, you won just by telling us all how great your ideas are. Not that I disagree about having a few more destroyers. Might get some creative thinking about roles, and if the roles can be found for all the frigates, I say we keep them AND have a few more destroyers too. Of course, if I wanted to kill cruisers, I would jump into a HAC. Too much smaller ship packing bigger weapons going on these days .. I mean, where is the AoE DD AF? I hope you can tell that I am merely emphasizing my point by using an extreme example. I look forward to seeing more creative thinking for new destroyer roles. I am thinking about it also, so I'll let ya'll know if I come up with anything.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#451 - 2012-06-14 22:48:02 UTC
Switching one of the existing frigate hulls to a destroyer and scaling up the model accordingly is actually not a bad idea, as the frigate range is currently hopelessly overcrowded and the destroyer range rather sparse. Since the current mining frigates don't yet have a T2 equivalent they're the obvious candidates since it would cause the least disruption, although it would mean essentially scrapping the recent Tormentor reworking. We'd probably need some improved models for them too if you wanted anyone to look twice at them, particularly for the hideous Burst and Bantam hulls.

My first thought is simply splitting the range into 'gank' and 'snipe' variants, though I'm sure somebody will be along shortly to tell me why this is a terrible idea.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Luscius Uta
#452 - 2012-06-15 06:36:27 UTC
Speaking about destroyers, I would add one tier 2 destroyer to each race, they should be singificantly better than tier 1 destroyers, much like tier 2 battlecruisers are better than tier 1 BC's (so more power grid, CPU, one more mid or low slot), while still being cheaper than T1 cruisers and inferior to assault frigates. They should also have different bonuses than tier 1 destroyers that are still consistent with their racial theme. For example:

Caldari

5% shield resistance per level
10% bonus to Rocket and Light Missile velocity per level

Minmatar

7.5% shield boost amount per level
10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret falloff per level

CCP also might introduce T3 destroyers one day, but much like T3 cruisers cannot replace heavy interdictors, they should not be able to replace existing T2 destroyers. Instead, with right subsystems (who should be much cheaper than subsystems used in strategic cruisers) you could give them more tank and DPS (turning them into Destroyers equivalent of assault frigates), speed, tackle range and agility (Interceptors), ability to warp cloaked (Covert ops), and EWAR bonuses (Electronic attack ships).

Also, we don't have navy or pirate faction destroyers or battlecruisers, so I hope that's on CCP's "todo" list.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Veruca Salt
#453 - 2012-06-15 10:48:05 UTC
"Have a look at Rookie frigates to make them more versatile but less efficient than revamped frigates "

Why waste brilliant design art like Ibis for something less efficient? You already have plans to assign roles to each frigates, then it make sense rookie ships have something efficient so players can use it significantly more than a few days.

Or

You can make T2 or faction version of rookie ship design art.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#454 - 2012-06-15 16:34:07 UTC
A couple comments:
1. The perception of the current state of destroyer balance seems to be off from my experience. Cormorants, in particular, are much better than most people give them credit for. Coercers with a point would be very deadly. Cats are great dps machines and of great use in blobs, but Thrashers are better in every way.

2. Careful balancing needs to be applied for second set of destroyers. Missiles are clearly better than drones in this game. Gallente/Amarr may get the shaft with this second set of dessies.

3. "Long range" and "drone frigate" don't go well together. Navitas will likely be doomed to failure if not balanced well.
Mira Lynne
State War Academy
Caldari State
#455 - 2012-06-15 19:00:26 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
add one tier 2 destroyer to each race, they should be singificantly better than tier 1 destroyers

Tiers are bad.
Posted in the Tiericide Thread too, for shame...

[u]I, too, horse frogs.[/u] Support the Return of Realistic Module Icons! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114818&find=unread
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#456 - 2012-06-15 19:51:45 UTC
indeed we don't need another drake vs ferox issue tiercide ftw :) dessies do plenty of dps for a t1 small hull as it is and they are adding a second dessie for each race with different weapon systems to add variance/choice this is good they dont need to be better just different or your in danger of making them OP

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Electra Magnetic
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#457 - 2012-06-15 23:14:45 UTC
Funny how a few lines of code take months to edit... c'mon CCP, pull your panties up and get the job done. No reason it should take months to fix a few ships at this point. Wonder why there arnt millions of subscribers to EVE?? Its because the game sucks, and CCP is too slow to fix it. Not to mention they are diverting funds that should be used in EVE to devolping a terrible FPS for a console no one wants to use anymore.

Get with the program CCP, get rid of all the menus everywhere and stream line the interface. Make the game fun to play for everyone by requiring people to fulfill all skill requirements in order to fly a bigger ship.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#458 - 2012-06-15 23:26:49 UTC
Electra Magnetic wrote:
Funny how a few lines of code take months to edit...

The time-consuming part is redesigning the roles in the first place, evaluating feedback, etc. 'A few lines of code' is what happens at the very end of the process.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Varg Krugar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#459 - 2012-06-16 12:31:07 UTC
Luscius Uta wrote:
Speaking about destroyers, I would add one tier 2 destroyer to each race, they should be significantly better than tier 1 destroyers, much like tier 2 battlecruisers are better than tier 1 BC's (so more power grid, CPU, one more mid or low slot), while still being cheaper than T1 cruisers and inferior to assault frigates. They should also have different bonuses than tier 1 destroyers that are still consistent with their racial theme.
uhm. tiericide?

i love my thrasher dearly, but i really don't think power creep on destroyer sized hulls is good for the game overall. also "inferior to assault frigates"? in what regard? i'm not so sure many AFs can go toe-to-toe with a thrasher currently.

i'm in favour of the second set of destroyers being different, not better. maybe just make them missile based, just so missile people have a dessy hull to play with. (also, launching rockets from 8 pods? awesome lightshow. might be abused for client lag induction tho)

i'm curious how the mentioned planetary bombardment bonus will work out. i kinda expected this to be the job of vessels with larger guns (BS/Dread hulls), so i wouldn't be terribly surprised if they make the new destroyers fit medium guns in the same way tier3 bcs fit large ones. i'm sure hisec gankers everywhere will approve.


Luscius Uta wrote:
CCP also might introduce T3 destroyers one day, but much like T3 cruisers cannot replace heavy interdictors, they should not be able to replace existing T2 destroyers. Instead, with right subsystems (who should be much cheaper than subsystems used in strategic cruisers) you could give them more tank and DPS (turning them into Destroyers equivalent of assault frigates), speed, tackle range and agility (Interceptors), ability to warp cloaked (Covert ops), and EWAR bonuses (Electronic attack ships).

Also, we don't have navy or pirate faction destroyers or battlecruisers, so I hope that's on CCP's "todo" list.
i could envision t3 frigates, but t3 destroyers sound like too much lowsignanohacwtfbbq to me. i would fly one for sure, but it just doesn't seem like they could be anything but ridiculously over the top.
Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#460 - 2012-06-16 15:15:49 UTC
Varg Krugar wrote:
i could envision t3 frigates, but t3 destroyers sound like too much lowsignanohacwtfbbq to me. i would fly one for sure, but it just doesn't seem like they could be anything but ridiculously over the top.

Good sir, T3 does not mean over-powered. It means under-powered versatility. Used wisely, the versatility could prove tactically powerful. Do not fear that new things might be OP. Leave that job for CCP and for the Test server.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein