These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Shandir
Indigo Archive
#141 - 2012-04-24 18:37:39 UTC
stg slate wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Great comments in here, let's address some of them.

  • MINING SHIPS & TORMENTOR CHANGES: the plan is to completely change mining ships into more interesting hulls, and possibly add a basic mining role to Rookie ships and/or bit more advanced one for a special ORE frigate. Since we can't do much more than 5 frigates for Inferno, that means the other mining frigates will stay that way until we overhaul them, hopefully to be touched soon after Inferno.
  • [/list]



    If you revamp the tormentor in this pass then Amarr new players will be entirely without a mining frigate for a while.

    I wouldn't do that only knowing the then rest of the update 'hopefully will come soon'.



    Do players really use the mining frigs for any serious length of time?
    Daesis Wrack
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #142 - 2012-04-24 18:38:11 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:


    • There will be no skill change for Inferno. Your destroyer and battlecruiser skills are safe for now
    • Battlecruisers will have to wait until we have rebalanced frigates and destroyers to have something clean to compare them with


    What about Carrier skills only requiring battleship 4 instead of 5? When will that happen?
    Lunkwill Khashour
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #143 - 2012-04-24 18:54:25 UTC
    Standby for longish answer. TL DR at end.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    Plans for the frigate class (remember all of this is still WIP for the time being):

    • Split and re-purpose frigates into Combat, Attack, Bombardment and Support roles (includes revamping mining frigates into this)
    • Have a look at Rookie frigates to make them more versatile but less efficient than revamped frigates
    • On the power ladder, tech 1 frigates should be less effective than faction / tech 2, but more forgiving and flexible with their fittings


    Rookie frig boost is much welcomed. Agree with the power ladder. The roles you're intending need to be defined before you can except player response. I'll make to following assumptions:

    • Combat: the ability to brawl. Good balance between gang and tank
    • Attack: Balance towards gank and offensive modules
    • Bombardment: long range and/or high burst damage
    • Support: E-war

    Some remarks:

    • Does bombardment mean that every race will get missile ship, T1 SB? Where is the variability in that?
    • Is every race supposed to have one of each? Or more than one? The 5th frig would be a prober and the 6th a utility frig?
    • Either all races get a mining frig and/or hauling frig (e.g. Magnate) or none do IMO
    • Since you're changing everything a the frig level, you should also look at the modules those frigs are supposed to work with. I'll come back to that.
    • I love the increased speeds across the line. It'll separate frig speeds from fast cruisers better. I'ld suggest to halving the MWD sig penalty at the module level rather than handing out role bonusses everytime a single class is looked at.




    Quote:

    In this topic we will focus on Combat frigate rebalancing, which affects:

    • Tormentor: role changed from mining frigate to medium range combat vessel
    • Punisher: improved role to fit close-medium range brawler
    • Merlin: overhauled role to fit medium-long range turret platform
    • Incursus: overhauld role to fit close range brawler
    • Rifter: role untouched, it already is made of win and dipped with awesomesauce


    Are you considering the above ships all to be combat frigs? Given the roles described, some fit better in to attack or bombardment roles. (where I regard long range as bombardment). A combat frig, more than an attack frig should be able to duke it out. I'ld suggest a tanking bonus and a utility/other weaponsystem high slot to define a combat vessel.


    Quote:

    TORMENTOR:

    • New bonuses: 10% to small energy turret range and 10% bonus to small energy capacitor use per level
    • Slot layout: 3 H, 3 M, 4 L, 3 turrets, no launchers
    • Fittings: 60 PWG, 140 CPU
    • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 350 / 450 / 400
    • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 280 / 180 s / 1.55
    • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 320 / 3.05 / 1180000 / 3.37 s
    • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
    • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 40km / 620 / 4
    • Sensor strength: 9 Radar
    • Signature radius: 35


    I understand that you're trying to change the Tormentor into a beam or med pulse frig. The crazy high PWG is needed to fit beams or med pulses but the reality is that the PWG requirements on lasers especially on the frig level are crazy high. Rather than giving the Tormentor destroyer level of grid, reduce the grid need of lasers.

    If the tormentor stays as prosposed, It will be able to outrifter the rifter. Think 200ac's in highs, prop/scram/web in mid and using all that grid for buffer in lows. (or 2 med shields in lulz fits) Alternatively it's more of a bombardment than a combat frigate.


    Quote:

    PUNISHER:

    • New bonuses: 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret damage and 5% bonus to armor resistances per skill level
    • Slot layout: 4 H, 2 M, 4 L, 3 turrets, no launchers
    • Fittings: 55 PWG, 124 CPU
    • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 350 / 500 / 450
    • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 300 / 180 s / 1.66
    • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 330 / 3.35 / 1047000 / 3.28 s
    • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
    • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 25km / 640 / 4
    • Sensor strength: 9 Radar
    • Signature radius: 37


    Again the increased power grid. Same problem as above: 200ac's, a neut and a 400 in low. It's the grid/cap use of lasers that needs to be fixed, not the grid of the frigs that mount them. Moreover the removal of the cap use bonus and the nerfed cap means lasers are even more out of the question. Active tanking with no cap and grid for buffer will also lose its attraction (whereas a repper on a pun is commonplace and viable atm)
    Lunkwill Khashour
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #144 - 2012-04-24 18:54:54 UTC
    Quote:

    MERLIN:

    • New bonuses: 5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret damage and 10% to small hybrid turret range per level
    • Slot layout: 3 H, 4 M, 3 L, 3 turrets, no launchers
    • Fittings: 40 PWG, 180 CPU
    • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 500 / 350 / 350
    • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 260 / 180 s / 1.44
    • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 310 / 3.7 / 997000 / 3.45 s
    • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
    • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 580 / 5
    • Sensor strength: 11 Gravimetric
    • Signature radius: 39


    Disclaimer: haven't flown a Merlin in years. Hybrid range tends to a more bombardment and less brawler/combat. No utility highs and less cap aswell. Whatever this Merlin is, a combat frigate it isn't. Suggest to change a low in a high, give 2 (or 3) launcher slots and switch optimal with resist bonus.

    Quote:

    INCURSUS:

    • New bonuses: 5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret damage and 10% bonus to armor repairer effectiveness per level
    • Slot layout: 3 H, 3 M, 4 L, 3 turrets, no launchers
    • Fittings: 45 PWG, 135 CPU
    • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 400 / 450 / 500
    • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 280 / 180 s / 1.55
    • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 340 / 3.15 / 1028000 / 3.0 s
    • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 5 / 5
    • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 30km / 600 / 4
    • Sensor strength: 9 Magnetometric
    • Signature radius: 42


    The old incursus was definitely an attack frigate. There isn't enough cap to run a repairer. The huge repair bonus also begs to be used, focusing the new incursus more to tank than gank. I've got the same remark here as I had with the punisher. If a ships needs a 10% bonus to repping to be competitive, then it's the SAR itself that's underpowered. The same argument could be made for the small shield booster. Giving a punisher the grid for 400 plate but no cap for a repper and giving the incursus the bonus for a repper eliminates versatility rather than creates it.

    Quote:

    RIFTER:

    • Unchanged bonuses
    • Unchanged Slot layout: 4 H, 3 M, 3 L, 3 turrets, 2 launchers
    • Unchanged fittings: 37 PWG, 125 CPU
    • Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 450 / 400 / 400
    • Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 240 / 180 s / 1.33
    • Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 355 / 3.19 / 1067000 / 3.19 s
    • Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
    • Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 22.5km / 660 / 4
    • Sensor strength: 8 Ladar
    • Signature radius: 35


    I daren't critique the rifter, I'll leave that to others.


    TL, DR
    I get the impression the roles of frigates aren't really defined and they're only used to give the ships a standard way of fitting them while leaving little space for versatility (the rep bonus, removal of highs, removal of split weapon systems points to this)

    This may be a valid direction to take (since frigs should be newb friendly) but the currently proposed ships fail at these roles since it's not the ships that need improvement but the modules: active tanking/laser grid and cap use/MWD sig penalty.

    Kelsar Hemah
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #145 - 2012-04-24 19:00:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Kelsar Hemah
    Considering your making all frigs fit into a role, you could give each class a role bonus.

    Also it struck me that 4 out of 5 of these frigs have a damage bonus, this seem abit problematic when you have a gruppe of frigs designed to do more damage?

    The person above made a really good post I suggest CCP reads it I pretty much agree with it all.
    Lelob
    SniggWaffe
    Pandemic Horde
    #146 - 2012-04-24 19:07:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Lelob
    Lunkwill Khashour wrote:
    Quote:

    Disclaimer: haven't flown a Merlin in years. Hybrid range tends to a more bombardment and less brawler/combat. No utility highs and less cap aswell. Whatever this Merlin is, a combat frigate it isn't. Suggest to change a low in a high, give 2 (or 3) launcher slots and switch optimal with resist bonus.


    You don't see this with blasters?

    [quote]The old incursus was definitely an attack frigate. There isn't enough cap to run a repairer. The huge repair bonus also begs to be used, focusing the new incursus more to tank than gank. I've got the same remark here as I had with the punisher. If a ships needs a 10% bonus to repping to be competitive, then it's the SAR itself that's underpowered. The same argument could be made for the small shield booster. Giving a punisher the grid for 400 plate but no cap for a repper and giving the incursus the bonus for a repper eliminates versatility rather than creates it.


    I agree with the versatility argument. I also want to point out that a 10% bonus to small armor reps will be completely ******** with a cap booster, some navy cap boosters, duel sar's, and potentially implants/boosting t3. I am especially concerned with the kind of damage this thing can potentially tank with a legion booster. I would roughly estimate 200dps tanked before heat or drugs, with that going even higher with some +1% or +3% hardwirings. If this is fit like I think it will be, it will be unbreakable for any t1 frigate.

    edit: and that is only with t2 sar's. God knows what will happen when some genius puts c-type reps or better on this. (And they will)

    tl;dr = Revisit Incursus CCP please. Please.
    Lunkwill Khashour
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #147 - 2012-04-24 19:10:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Lunkwill Khashour
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Great comments in here, let's address some of them.


    • CAPACITORS: also fair points regarding capacitors, in some cases (Punisher especially) we initially wanted capacitor to be the drawback of these frigates, but it may be quite difficult for them to do their jobs while being affected by neuts. We'll iterate on that.
    • ONLY 5 SHIPS?!: unfortunately for Inferno, yes. We initially wanted to revamp all frigates for this release, however problem is we are lacking Dev power at the moment (I am assigned to other projects as well, and Tallest is playing daddy with his twins Twisted ) so yep that is lame, but sadly we will have to cope with that for now.
    • MINING SHIPS & TORMENTOR CHANGES: the plan is to completely change mining ships into more interesting hulls, and possibly add a basic mining role to Rookie ships and/or bit more advanced one for a special ORE frigate. Since we can't do much more than 5 frigates for Inferno, that means the other mining frigates will stay that way until we overhaul them, hopefully to be touched soon after Inferno.
    • ATTACK FRIGATES: in general faster than the other frigates, with good damage, suited for interception or just damage dealing, but less resilient than combat frigates. Includes the Executioner (turret ship), Bantam (turret ship), Atron (turret ship), Navitas (dedicated drone ship), Slasher (turret ship) and Burst (TBD, possibly drone ship if role doesn't conflict with Navitas)



    My previous posts were typed before this answer, but here are some more unasked opinions:

    • IMO, The punisher has cap issues by just removing the cap use bonus.
    • NOS should be main answer to neuting, followed by better capacitor. Utility high should support every frig that gets into small neut range. Some ships with a launcher slot could switch to a launcher for kiting builds.
    • Only 5 frigs. Personally I'ld prefer to switch up entire classes at the same time. Moreover, popular ships should be a priority for Dev's, but I understand. 5 is better than none afterall!
    • I'ld try to overhaul the remaining 3 mining frigs aswell AND overhaul the Procurer aswell. Lower the SP requirements, add some high slots and remove to ability to equip a strip miner instead relying on conventional mining lasers.
    • I'ld change the Incursus back to an attack frigate. Make the Navitas a combat frig instead (with drones and 7.5% rep bonus it's a small Myrmidon)
    • Good idea for the bombardment role as long range doesn't really exist for frigs.
    Daneel Trevize
    Give my 11percent back
    #148 - 2012-04-24 19:16:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    • BOMBARDMENT FRIGATES: classification is mainly cosmetic, not much different role wise than Combat / Attack frigates. ... Supposedly being split up by two versions, those that are close range based with high damage (rockets) and the others being more of a medium range platforms (and thus light missile based).
    You (CCP) are clearly trying to justify a 'role' name that doesn't fit. Just let it go, and forget about this superfluous 'Bombardment' name. It isn't a role, you just seem hesitant to permit missile ships to be in the other roles.

    Call a role snipers/alpha-oriented/volley ships if you feel there is one to define.
    Marcel Devereux
    Aideron Robotics
    #149 - 2012-04-24 20:02:24 UTC
    Daneel Trevize wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    • BOMBARDMENT FRIGATES: classification is mainly cosmetic, not much different role wise than Combat / Attack frigates. ... Supposedly being split up by two versions, those that are close range based with high damage (rockets) and the others being more of a medium range platforms (and thus light missile based).
    You (CCP) are clearly trying to justify a 'role' name that doesn't fit. Just let it go, and forget about this superfluous 'Bombardment' name. It isn't a role, you just seem hesitant to permit missile ships to be in the other roles.

    Call a role snipers/alpha-oriented/volley ships if you feel there is one to define.


    Agreed. If the only difference between the Combat and Bombardment roles is turrets vs missiles then the roles needs to be reworked.
    Gypsio III
    Questionable Ethics.
    Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
    #150 - 2012-04-24 20:24:16 UTC
    Lunkwill Khashour wrote:

    Disclaimer: haven't flown a Merlin in years. Hybrid range tends to a more bombardment and less brawler/combat. No utility highs and less cap aswell. Whatever this Merlin is, a combat frigate it isn't. Suggest to change a low in a high, give 2 (or 3) launcher slots and switch optimal with resist bonus.


    Maybe a name change to "bad Kestrel clone" too? There's already a perfectly good Caldari missile frigate, and although we don't know what CCP intends to do with it, I'm willing to bet it'll stay missile-focused.

    However, the mobility of the proposed Merlin is terrible.The Caldari mobility theme is slow-but-agile. The current TQ Merlin adheres to this, but this proposed Merlin is the slowest and least agile. Stick to the racial theme.
    Doge Tzu
    Mock Squad
    #151 - 2012-04-24 20:36:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Doge Tzu
    I like the changes and the discussion thus far, but please please do not do this piecemeal. Finish whatever it is that you have to do and then come back with the resources and focus fire this project.

    The changes you are talking about making "for now" are just going to work to skew the market further and make the already obsolete hulls more-so. Further I expect it will be easier on you guys to not have to go back and change ships you've already released to fit in with the entire fleet yet to come. Save yourselves the grief of all the QQ my awesome sauce ship got nerfed and keep them all to play with until you get it right.

    Any decent FC can tell you that you don't win the fight without the correct fleet composition and even with the perfect counter fleet you will lose by not focusing your efforts.

    Please do not put this out half/quarter finished. Let it sit for the month or however long it takes to free up the resources and then knock it out. I like the CCP "it comes when it's finished" model so let's please stick to that.

    Edit: Also you're telling us that the most fundamental game design portion of Eve is only getting worked on by One person?! That's absolutely absurd to continue on with and expect anything but mediocre results. No way am I bashing you or your abilities, it's just way too big of a responsibility and task for a single person to not miss something here or there. If you want to give us something, give us the ORE mining frigate/destroyer classes. That's a way more reasonably goal imo.
    Marcel Devereux
    Aideron Robotics
    #152 - 2012-04-24 20:55:48 UTC
    Doge Tzu wrote:
    I like the changes and the discussion thus far, but please please do not do this piecemeal. Finish whatever it is that you have to do and then come back with the resources and focus fire this project.

    The changes you are talking about making "for now" are just going to work to skew the market further and make the already obsolete hulls more-so. Further I expect it will be easier on you guys to not have to go back and change ships you've already released to fit in with the entire fleet yet to come. Save yourselves the grief of all the QQ my awesome sauce ship got nerfed and keep them all to play with until you get it right.

    Any decent FC can tell you that you don't win the fight without the correct fleet composition and even with the perfect counter fleet you will lose by not focusing your efforts.

    Please do not put this out half/quarter finished. Let it sit for the month or however long it takes to free up the resources and then knock it out. I like the CCP "it comes when it's finished" model so let's please stick to that.

    Edit: Also you're telling us that the most fundamental game design portion of Eve is only getting worked on by One person?! That's absolutely absurd to continue on with and expect anything but mediocre results. No way am I bashing you or your abilities, it's just way too big of a responsibility and task for a single person to not miss something here or there. If you want to give us something, give us the ORE mining frigate/destroyer classes. That's a way more reasonably goal imo.


    Your statement of only one person working on it is incorrect. He said he is only partly working on it as he has other projects. So we have less than one person working on it ;-)
    Prometheus Exenthal
    mnemonic.
    #153 - 2012-04-24 21:59:28 UTC
    Rep bonus on a T1 frigate is useless.
    Doubly so on an a blaster frigate.

    The reason?
    3 mids, 3 highs, & hybrids.

    A hybrid ship thrives on two things; range control & capacitor.
    3 highs means it can't fit a nos to use that rep, and 3 mids means it can't control range should you decide to inject.

    Nevermind the fact that in most circumstances the frigate will get alphad through armor, or that it can't combat neuts when repping. Removing the ships falloff bonus makes it a Rocketless Tristan, which is crap.

    Technically, if you spend enough isk you can make it perform just the same thanks to the 4 lows, but that's a terrible price to pay.
    If you're worried about people abusing the falloff bonus, lower the CPU to somewhere in between what it used to be and where it is in this proposal. Problem solved.

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

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

    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #154 - 2012-04-24 22:58:18 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Great comments in here, let's address some of them.


    • MERLIN: we can see how the loss of the shield resistance bonus poses a problem to this hull; we first wanted to get feedback on a possible medium-long range overhaul for that ship, but as people mentioned here, that's very difficult to achieve for a slow frigate or even for any kind of platform using small weapons in the first place. Back to the drawing board!

    • CAPACITORS: also fair points regarding capacitors, in some cases (Punisher especially) we initially wanted capacitor to be the drawback of these frigates, but it may be quite difficult for them to do their jobs while being affected by neuts. We'll iterate on that.

    • TORMENTOR: the point of this ship is to give a more all rounded, comfortable hull to use for engagements than the Punisher, which explains the range and quite significantly increased fittings. This is still up for constructive discussion as well.

    • ONLY 5 SHIPS?!: unfortunately for Inferno, yes. We initially wanted to revamp all frigates for this release, however problem is we are lacking Dev power at the moment (I am assigned to other projects as well, and Tallest is playing daddy with his twins Twisted ) so yep that is lame, but sadly we will have to cope with that for now.

    • MINING SHIPS & TORMENTOR CHANGES: the plan is to completely change mining ships into more interesting hulls, and possibly add a basic mining role to Rookie ships and/or bit more advanced one for a special ORE frigate. Since we can't do much more than 5 frigates for Inferno, that means the other mining frigates will stay that way until we overhaul them, hopefully to be touched soon after Inferno.



    Also, some players have expressed issues understanding where we are going without having a more accurate picture of the other frigates, allow us to give you a glimpse of things to come.


    • COMBAT FRIGATES: have a balanced damage / resilience / speed ratio next to the other frigates. Includes the Tormentor, Punisher, Merlin, Incursus and Rifter.

    • ATTACK FRIGATES: in general faster than the other frigates, with good damage, suited for interception or just damage dealing, but less resilient than combat frigates. Includes the Executioner (turret ship), Bantam (turret ship), Atron (turret ship), Navitas (dedicated drone ship), Slasher (turret ship) and Burst (TBD, possibly drone ship if role doesn't conflict with Navitas)

    • BOMBARDMENT FRIGATES: classification is mainly cosmetic, not much different role wise than Combat / Attack frigates. Mainly use missiles, speed / EHP between Attack and Combat frigates and depending on their individual purpose. Is made of the Inquisitor, Condor, Kestrel, Tristan and Breacher. Supposedly being split up by two versions, those that are close range based with high damage (rockets) and the others being more of a medium range platforms (and thus light missile based).

    • SUPPORT FRIGATES: split in two, first, the purely scanning frigates - Magnate, Heron, Imicus, Probe - and EW frigates - Crucifier, Griffin, Imicus, Probe. All need a boost, but their role should not be changed much.



    Remember, theses classifications and frigate affiliations are still likely to change, and are mainly used to help us sort them out for now. These are just concept changes still, there will be other discussion threads for them specifically, so don't freak out Blink


    why not give specific classes of ships role bonuses... that way you can make all close range assualt ships have better role resist... while still having two specific ship bonus...

    so merlin could have a base 17.5% increase to shield resists
    and then have its 5% to damage and 10% to optimal

    make the bombard frigs use oversized weapons like t3 bc's... but make them have noob ship hp and fittings...

    split support into ewar and logi...

    make an ewar(make the ewar role bonus for probes or someting) based tech I frig and logi (then make a tech II logi frig that uses medium sized remote reps)



    There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

    CCP Ytterbium
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #155 - 2012-04-24 23:20:43 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
    Marcel Devereux wrote:
    Daneel Trevize wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    • BOMBARDMENT FRIGATES: classification is mainly cosmetic, not much different role wise than Combat / Attack frigates. ... Supposedly being split up by two versions, those that are close range based with high damage (rockets) and the others being more of a medium range platforms (and thus light missile based).
    You (CCP) are clearly trying to justify a 'role' name that doesn't fit. Just let it go, and forget about this superfluous 'Bombardment' name. It isn't a role, you just seem hesitant to permit missile ships to be in the other roles.

    Call a role snipers/alpha-oriented/volley ships if you feel there is one to define.


    Agreed. If the only difference between the Combat and Bombardment roles is turrets vs missiles then the roles needs to be reworked.


    There is truth in that statement, and that is one of the questions we asked ourselves as well when we came up with the classifications. They are mainly cosmetic at this point anyway and most likely going to change, but this indeed deserves further consideration. Glad we are having this discussion and getting your feedback before starting on the missile ships themselves Pirate.
    Endeavour Starfleet
    #156 - 2012-04-25 05:40:22 UTC
    Thinking about it, I gotta agree with the issues when it comes to repair. You make a ship type the go to for logistics and it will just be WTF primaried off the field. Skill bonus for these modules should be vastly improved so that any T1 group on the field can be doing all that rep work instead of easy to guess targets.
    Lunkwill Khashour
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #157 - 2012-04-25 07:12:11 UTC
    Gypsio III wrote:
    Lunkwill Khashour wrote:

    Disclaimer: haven't flown a Merlin in years. Hybrid range tends to a more bombardment and less brawler/combat. No utility highs and less cap aswell. Whatever this Merlin is, a combat frigate it isn't. Suggest to change a low in a high, give 2 (or 3) launcher slots and switch optimal with resist bonus.


    Maybe a name change to "bad Kestrel clone" too? There's already a perfectly good Caldari missile frigate, and although we don't know what CCP intends to do with it, I'm willing to bet it'll stay missile-focused.

    However, the mobility of the proposed Merlin is terrible.The Caldari mobility theme is slow-but-agile. The current TQ Merlin adheres to this, but this proposed Merlin is the slowest and least agile. Stick to the racial theme.

    You misundertood me. The 3 turret slots stay, it also gains 1, 2 or 3 launcher slots and a 4th high. The idea is to fit a nos in the 4th for close range setups or a launcher for kiting setups. The other launcher slots are there for weird stuff (3 launcher/1 neut e.g.)
    Quesa
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #158 - 2012-04-25 08:15:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Quesa
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    Great comments in here, let's address some of them.


    • MERLIN: we can see how the loss of the shield resistance bonus poses a problem to this hull; we first wanted to get feedback on a possible medium-long range overhaul for that ship, but as people mentioned here, that's very difficult to achieve for a slow frigate or even for any kind of platform using small weapons in the first place. Back to the drawing board!

    • CAPACITORS: also fair points regarding capacitors, in some cases (Punisher especially) we initially wanted capacitor to be the drawback of these frigates, but it may be quite difficult for them to do their jobs while being affected by neuts. We'll iterate on that.

    • TORMENTOR: the point of this ship is to give a more all rounded, comfortable hull to use for engagements than the Punisher, which explains the range and quite significantly increased fittings. This is still up for constructive discussion as well.

    I'd, honestly, much rather you homogenize these t1 frigate ships into the below sub-classes:

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

    • COMBAT FRIGATES: have a balanced damage / resilience / speed ratio next to the other frigates. Includes the Tormentor, Punisher, Merlin, Incursus and Rifter.

    • ATTACK FRIGATES: in general faster than the other frigates, with good damage, suited for interception or just damage dealing, but less resilient than combat frigates. Includes the Executioner (turret ship), Bantam (turret ship), Atron (turret ship), Navitas (dedicated drone ship), Slasher (turret ship) and Burst (TBD, possibly drone ship if role doesn't conflict with Navitas)

    • BOMBARDMENT FRIGATES: classification is mainly cosmetic, not much different role wise than Combat / Attack frigates. Mainly use missiles, speed / EHP between Attack and Combat frigates and depending on their individual purpose. Is made of the Inquisitor, Condor, Kestrel, Tristan and Breacher. Supposedly being split up by two versions, those that are close range based with high damage (rockets) and the others being more of a medium range platforms (and thus light missile based).

    • SUPPORT FRIGATES: split in two, first, the purely scanning frigates - Magnate, Heron, Imicus, Probe - and EW frigates - Crucifier, Griffin, Imicus, Probe. All need a boost, but their role should not be changed much.


    Essentially, similar stats for each race ship in these classes because they are so small and restricted to their respective fitting types, any difference in the frigate stats makes one exceedingly more powerful vs. others.

    I like the idea of frigate sub-classes, it works well with the T2 frigate theme (attack, recon, bombardment) of frigates.

    I'd like to see T1 bombardment frigates have the bomber bonus to torp launchers for fitting but no cloak or bomb boni.

    CCP Ytterbium wrote:

  • MINING SHIPS & TORMENTOR CHANGES: the plan is to completely change mining ships into more interesting hulls, and possibly add a basic mining role to Rookie ships and/or bit more advanced one for a special ORE frigate. Since we can't do much more than 5 frigates for Inferno, that means the other mining frigates will stay that way until we overhaul them, hopefully to be touched soon after Inferno.


  • Also, some players have expressed issues understanding where we are going without having a more accurate picture of the other frigates, allow us to give you a glimpse of things to come.

    Remember, theses classifications and frigate affiliations are still likely to change, and are mainly used to help us sort them out for now. These are just concept changes still, there will be other discussion threads for them specifically, so don't freak out Blink

    Meh, for the mining frigate because pre-ORE ships there isn't a hull restriction for the mining turrets and minimal investment needed to get to the mining cruisers.

    I would also like to see Interceptors or interceptor-type frigates have a much lower time to enter into warp so they can actually intercept. In fact, I'd like to see a formula for entering warp be dependent upon the ships mass.
    Wolfger Silberbaer
    Quantum Anomaly Corporation
    #159 - 2012-04-25 09:01:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolfger Silberbaer
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    MERLIN:
    [list]
  • New bonuses: 5% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret damage and 10% to small hybrid turret range per level
  • Slot layout: 3 H, 4 M, 3 L, 3 turrets, no launchers

  • Currently, the resistance bonuses are the only thing that make a Merlin worth flying. You're stripping those, and you're also replacing *2* launchers with *1* turret, nerfing what tiny amount of DPS the Merlin already had. Just admit you hate Caldari and be done with it P

    (edit: I see I'm late to the game, and the wisdom of the crowd has already made this point Cool )
    Nalha Saldana
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #160 - 2012-04-25 09:47:31 UTC
    Mixed weapon system is a minmatar thing and I really like that you are finally removing it from the others.
    The weak capacitor on many ships can be a problem but also consider that they were talking about ammunition based repairers, maybe the Incursus will be perfect for these.