Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
seller1122
Viral Target
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 13:16:00 -
[241] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:I disagree that these new AFs are too strong.
I wanted to see how good the new AFs are against a larger ship. I asked a friendly Jaguar pilot to make a fit designed to fight a cruiser. He went with an afterburner, nos and even a tracking disruptor (and of course capless weapons). I picked the Maller because it has no drone bay, is considered weak and because lasers don't track as well as blasters or autocannons.
Maller
5x Focused Medium Pulse II (cruiser sized weapons FYI), small neut AB, web, scram 1600mm plate, 3x HS, DCU, Adaptive Nano Plating no rigs
The outcome? Jaguar went boom when I had about 1/3 armor left.
I was said jag pilot btw....... His neut eventually turned my web off and he managed to pull range giving him good tracking as i tried to get back on top of him.
Afs are still very weak to ships designed to kill them (as it should be imo). To people screaming afs are op, please just try them on sisi they really aren't OP at all. They are very balanced within there own ship class and are still very weak to kiters. Only ones that need looking at imo are enyo and wolf. (Enyo spits out a bit to much damage and the wolf is too strong with the falloff bonus, switch it with the jags optimal bonus) |
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 14:51:00 -
[242] - Quote
Dear CCP,
first I would like to thank you for giving the AFs attention they needed.
Having the extensive experience in flying Jaguars and combating the other AFs in it, I believe I am competent to give you some criticsm on your proposal.
1) Proposed changes are too powerful - slot layouts of all AFs should remain as they are; with the exeption of Retribution which should get its 2nd med slot but at the expense of one low slot. I can see no need of adding more slots to any of AFs (they are small ships after all) and you can find no justification of whole pack of balance issues it may have brought.
2) MWD signature reduction - This bonus might be viable for 0.0 AF pilots, where MWD is nessesary for avoiding bubbles and such but will not help to increase AF s survivability in actual fight. Quite the contrary, MWD will become a burden while you are webbed and trying to keep close orbit of, say, Hurricane which is scrambling you, neuting you and having a flight of pesky small drones shredding you appart. The main problem of AFs are webs - you got more than one on you and you are dead in the water nomatter what. So if you really want to help AFs some sort of speed boost or web effeciency reduction would be in order.
But as somebody mentioned above, AB boost might be a litte too much. MWD sig reduction on the other hand is so insignificant for close range AFs that I doubt it will bring much of controversy. However I cant say how it will influence long range AFs - can it make them viable?
3) Fitting slots again - in the most cases +1 med slot is not equal to +1 low slot. Therefore Hawk with 5 med slots is simply ridiculous - only not-ewar frig which has that is a Hookbill and that ship is quite overpowered if you ask me. And now imagine an Hookbill with AF resists... Also i dont have any good feelings about 3 med slots Enyo. Iam afraid you are breaking balance a lot here...
CONCLUSION
Leave the slot leyouts as they were (with the exeption for Retribution), add the bonuses and armor/CPU increases as you are proposing and AFs should be just fine. If you want to add the role bonus for Afs (which I would not recommend), I would suggest something boosting AFs combat survivability more. But if you insist on MWD sig reduction, go for it its at least non-game breaking in any sanse i could think of:)) |
Zarak1 Kenpach1
Aperture Harmonics K162
32
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 15:01:00 -
[243] - Quote
how about you find another summit to crash.
your a bad csm Rep. |
Teleni Pavle
Republic University Minmatar Republic
20
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 15:03:00 -
[244] - Quote
Better role bonus: +2 microwarp drive core scramble strength.
Let them be able to run a MWD while hit with a standard scramble. This can be explained away by the fact that AFs are much more massive than their T1 counterparts. The weight can be said to come from A: the increased protective capabilities, and B: the shielding used to protect the MWD.
Suddenly you have a ship that can determine its range but by doing so has the drawback of having a super-huge sig radius. This makes you need to play with your MWD, since if you simply leave it running some bigger ship is going to eat you alive. What it does allow however is for a heavy tackler that can keep a point on nearly anything, as being scrammed doesn't instantly kill your ability to keep a target in range. You're an AF, you're slower than most other frigate targets.
It also makes it so that you don't necessarily need dual prop to deal with being scrammed. |
seller1122
Viral Target
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 15:04:00 -
[245] - Quote
Alex Medvedov wrote:Dear CCP,
first I would like to thank you for giving the AFs attention they needed.
Having the extensive experience in flying Jaguars and combating the other AFs in it, I believe I am competent to give you some criticsm on your proposal.
1) Proposed changes are too powerful - slot layouts of all AFs should remain as they are; with the exeption of Retribution which should get its 2nd med slot but at the expense of one low slot. I can see no need of adding more slots to any of AFs (they are small ships after all) and you can find no justification of whole pack of balance issues it may have brought.
2) MWD signature reduction - This bonus might be viable for 0.0 AF pilots, where MWD is nessesary for avoiding bubbles and such but will not help to increase AF s survivability in actual fight. Quite the contrary, MWD will become a burden while you are webbed and trying to keep close orbit of, say, Hurricane which is scrambling you, neuting you and having a flight of pesky small drones shredding you appart. The main problem of AFs are webs - you got more than one on you and you are dead in the water nomatter what. So if you really want to help AFs some sort of speed boost or web effeciency reduction would be in order.
But as somebody mentioned above, AB boost might be a litte too much. MWD sig reduction on the other hand is so insignificant for close range AFs that I doubt it will bring much of controversy. However I cant say how it will influence long range AFs - can it make them viable?
3) Fitting slots again - in the most cases +1 med slot is not equal to +1 low slot. Therefore Hawk with 5 med slots is simply ridiculous - only not-ewar frig which has that is a Hookbill and that ship is quite overpowered if you ask me. And now imagine an Hookbill with AF resists... Also i dont have any good feelings about 3 med slots Enyo. Iam afraid you are breaking balance a lot here...
CONCLUSION
Leave the slot leyouts as they were (with the exeption for Retribution), add the bonuses and armor/CPU increases as you are proposing and AFs should be just fine. If you want to add the role bonus for Afs (which I would not recommend), I would suggest something boosting AFs combat survivability more. But if you insist on MWD sig reduction, go for it its at least non-game breaking in any sanse i could think of:))
Have you tried them on sisi yet ?? They really aren't OP. Speculation based upon your opinion =/= reality. Please I beg test them on sisi and them come back and comment. The mwd bonus is to make them more viable in nullsec. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think a few tweaks are needed to the enyo and wolf, but other than that they are pretty groovy atm! |
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 15:24:00 -
[246] - Quote
seller1122 wrote:
Have you tried them on sisi yet ??
Sure i did
seller1122 wrote: They really aren't OP. Speculation based upon your opinion =/= reality. Please I beg test them on sisi and them come back and comment.
Overpowered in relation with what? Overpowered in relation to bigger ships? Sure they are not. Overpowered in relation to each other? Sure they are.
Enyo with 3 mids? Good luck to any Wolf pilot taking that down... Rocket Hawk able to fit 2 webs? How do you want to kill that? ( assuming you are in AF) Another hi slot for a Vengeance without touching its already awesome tanking capability?
seller1122 wrote: The mwd bonus is to make them more viable in nullsec. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thats more or less what iam saying (or tried to say:))
|
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
98
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 15:33:00 -
[247] - Quote
Alex Medvedov wrote:Overpowered in relation with what? Overpowered in relation to bigger ships? Sure they are not. Overpowered in relation to each other? Sure they are.
Enyo with 3 mids? Good luck to any Wolf pilot taking that down... Rocket Hawk able to fit 2 webs? How do you want to kill that? ( assuming you are in AF) Another hi slot for a Vengeance without touching its already awesome tanking capability?
Well, good luck to a Retribution taking down a Wolf.
Retribution should kill Caldari AFs in theory, in practice it may have difficulties, which is why I keep saying that it needs to be better. Or maybe the Hawk/Harpy just needs some tweaks?
You know what's good against an active tank Vengeance? A blaster ship that overpowers the reps. A brick fit Vengeance is good but nothing that other AFs couldn't beat either.
What you see as balance problem I see as (mostly) working rock/paper/scissors system. |
Tawa Suyo
The Tuskers
12
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 15:45:00 -
[248] - Quote
Alex Medvedov wrote:Overpowered in relation with what? Overpowered in relation to bigger ships? Sure they are not. Overpowered in relation to each other? Sure they are.
Enyo with 3 mids? Good luck to any Wolf pilot taking that down... I've killed quite a few of the new enyos in a wolf, you just wear it down at range then go in for the kill (or just use a long point vaga wolf, but those can't kill a slicer).
Alex Medvedov wrote:Rocket Hawk able to fit 2 webs? How do you want to kill that? ( assuming you are in AF) Again, out range it, hit the massive EM hole. But yes, the dual web hawk is a little bit strong.
(I still need to test an ishkur vs it too, but I think that might stand a chance using warriors due to the much weaker tank of the dual web hawk and it's inability to use bonussed kinetic missiles)
Alex Medvedov wrote:Another hi slot for a Vengeance without touching its already awesome tanking capability? Out dps-ing its reps with a gank ship works fine
Alex Medvedov wrote:seller1122 wrote: The mwd bonus is to make them more viable in nullsec. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thats more or less what iam saying (or tried to say:))
But how is that a bad thing? It has no effect on AB only lowsec fits (either negative or positive) and makes them viable for nullsec... |
seller1122
Viral Target
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 15:48:00 -
[249] - Quote
Alex Medvedov wrote: Enyo with 3 mids? Good luck to any Wolf pilot taking that down...
Its a tough fight but wolfs can do it. They destroy each other so fast its more about the skill of the aproach. Plus i've said multiple times i think the enyo needs its dps reduced a tiny bit.
Alex Medvedov wrote: Rocket Hawk able to fit 2 webs? How do you want to kill that? ( assuming you are in AF)
Most of the Assualt frigs can hit out to 10km +, alot of it just comes down to the approach and the individual pilots skills. Hawk has to give up alot of tank to fit 2 webs so as long as you get your approach right you will easily kill it before it out kites you.
Alex Medvedov wrote: Another hi slot for a Vengeance without touching its already awesome tanking capability?
Its is very easy to out dps the vengeances tank using either harpy, wolf or enyo. Alternatively you can try random stuff like a dual neut ishkur which is just as effective.
I agree with the above post that what you are describing is a rock paper scissors system, not an actual balance issue.
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
344
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 15:55:00 -
[250] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Never mind how silly the idea is, but so far nobody has even put forward a suggestion that would "make them better specifically for low sec".
So far there have been suggestions of varying degrees of EWAR immunity (not low sec, just stupid), making them into little link ships or some special bonus when used with other AFs (not low sec, just ridiculous), and of course the poor dead horse that is the AB speed boost. Anyone worth their salt can see that beyond being vague and disorganized nature, they simply would not work within the current framework of EVE.
So please humour me for a moment, and explain what would make these "better for low sec", and how would these improvements be useful for the ~40% of PVP/PVE EVE players who don't live in empire space. Or perhaps how 55% of PVP players (00/wspace) won't care that they have no possible use for this mystical "low sec" specific change.
EVE is a universe, and not your tiny pocket of Heimatar. Everything you do, no matter how minor, needs to have a use elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only change that is making people **** themselves about fittings, and the sanctity of low sec, is the MWD bonus. The 4th bonus is universal, as are the extra slots, and they can be tweaked and adjusted. But the MWD bonus is the only one that seems to have struck a collective nerve. It doesn't force people to use them, and it's beneficial to those who choose to.
Anyone who has played with the new ships will agree that the MWD changes make them significantly more usable in lawless space. And those same people will tell you that AB fit frigs still destroy MWD fit ones. Since nobody seems to want look at the AB bonus as something that would be broken outside of low-sec, tell me how people fitting microwarpdrives to AFs in low-sec is broken. I can tell you it's not, but you don't want to hear it from me since I'm the bad guy.
Low-Sec has it's problems, but casting AFs into that abyss is not how they get solved.
5% speed bonus to frigate size afterburners per level.
ok, dead horse.
Make them the best ships in EVE to run low end anoms. Similar to how the ishtar is for hacs.
For this they'd need to be completely re-designed and their role readdressed. However, this would make them effective in low sec for ~something~.
The current proposal for AF's just makes them into beefier inty's that are a bit slower.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
243
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 16:33:00 -
[251] - Quote
seller1122 wrote:I was said jag pilot btw....... Not accustomed to frigate combat I take it.
Fighting bigger weight-classes necessitates a small nos which would have run ab/scram/web/td + intermittent armour rep perpetually, even when under effect of small neut. If you do not have nos fitted (ie. not fit to counter bigger) then you take 6-8km after first neut cycle hits and you identify its size. Puts you deep in falloff, halving your damage but with TD active (tracking script) he wont even breach the shields of the active armour tanked Jag.
Not being able to defeat a M.Laser boat in ab frig with td .. I don't even ..
Edit: How big is the SiSi patch, seems I might have to burn my months BW allowance to save Eve from dilettante frig pilots? |
Bob Niac
Tears of Redemption NEM3SIS.
11
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 16:41:00 -
[252] - Quote
Beeter for lowsec? So easy..
Role Bonus: Assualt Ships have a 7.5% chance per level to avoid anchored munitions such as station and gate turrets and launchers.
Done. Now.. can we move on? I <3 Logistics. Proud pilot of all 4 logi cruisers and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrible. |
seller1122
Viral Target
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 16:49:00 -
[253] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:seller1122 wrote:I was said jag pilot btw....... Not accustomed to frigate combat I take it. Fighting bigger weight-classes necessitates a small nos which would have run ab/scram/web/td + intermittent armour rep perpetually, even when under effect of small neut. If you do not have nos fitted (ie. not fit to counter bigger) then you take 6-8km after first neut cycle hits and you identify its size. Puts you deep in falloff, halving your damage but with TD active (tracking script) he wont even breach the shields of the active armour tanked Jag. Not being able to defeat a M.Laser boat in ab frig with td .. I don't even .. Edit: How big is the SiSi patch, seems I might have to burn my months BW allowance to save Eve from dilettante frig pilots?
Arr why its Mr "my opinion is right and that is all that matters" himself
First of all lets talk numbers. (Yes eft, all numbers here are capacitor per second) small nos gives +8.8 Ab + td + web + scram + 1 small neut gives -11.9 repper gives gives -18
So your talking rubbish there.
In terms of piloting.....
I am a mediocre pilot (can comfortably beat the rabble but struggle badly against experienced people) In terms of that fight in particular I died due to piloting error. I didn't manage my mods properly under the cap pressure and relied on 500orbit instead of manual flying. I died because once my web got turned off he pulled distance with the AB and then shot me down as i tried to get back ontop of him.
The point though was still that these afs aren't now uber pwn mobiles that people seem to be screaming about. They are still weak to designated anti-frigate ships and bad flying. |
Alex Medvedov
Gunpoint Diplomacy
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 16:50:00 -
[254] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Alex Medvedov wrote:Overpowered in relation with what? Overpowered in relation to bigger ships? Sure they are not. Overpowered in relation to each other? Sure they are.
Enyo with 3 mids? Good luck to any Wolf pilot taking that down... Rocket Hawk able to fit 2 webs? How do you want to kill that? ( assuming you are in AF) Another hi slot for a Vengeance without touching its already awesome tanking capability? Well, good luck to a Retribution taking down a Wolf. Retribution should kill Caldari AFs in theory, in practice it may have difficulties, which is why I keep saying that it needs to be better. Or maybe the Hawk/Harpy just needs some tweaks? You know what's good against an active tank Vengeance? A blaster ship that overpowers the reps. A brick fit Vengeance is good but nothing that other AFs couldn't beat either. What you see as balance problem I see as (mostly) working rock/paper/scissors system.
Good point with that Retribution:) And my bad for being so specific about what can or can not kill what. That discussion is not what i had in mind. Basically I wanted to argue 3 points:
1) Wheres the nessesity for adding more slots? (Retribution is an exeption) What does that solving?
2) There are 2 types of Afs now - heavy tacklers and DPS (Jag and Wolf for example) but if you add the third med to Enyo you are making a hybrid which can use web+scram+prop combination of a heavy tackler accompanied by high dmg output of DPS AF - thats what i dislike about the idea.
3) Combination of rockets and the ability to equip two webs is bad imho - its far too great advantage for a ship without tracking and range issues (dont forget Hawks range bonus).
I hope I have managed to expess what i had in mind in more understandable way:)
As for Tawa Suyo: I have never said MWD sig bonus is a bad thing, just it will not help AFs much. If the idea was -to give some role bonus to AFs but dont give them much...well iam content. |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
98
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 16:52:00 -
[255] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Not being able to defeat a M.Laser boat in ab frig with td .. I don't even ..
I'm available to repeat the test with any AF that you want to bring. You even know the exact setup now :) |
Tawa Suyo
The Tuskers
12
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 17:06:00 -
[256] - Quote
Bob Niac wrote:Beeter for lowsec? So easy..
Role Bonus: Automated evasive manuvers. Assualt Ships have a 7.5% chance per level to avoid anchored munitions such as station and gate turrets and launchers.
Add a random 'juke' animation while they are moving in combat (client side.) Done. Now.. can we move on? So... it has a 37.5% not to get hit by each shot, but that still means that frigates fighting on gate will massively favour the person without gate gun aggro. A lot of frigate fights are so close that even taking one hit from sentries (which knock off around 15-20% of your total hp) will change the outcome of a fight.
Only way this bonus wouldn't be massively pointless RNG based pvp is if you made it 100% (btw, role bonuses are a flat bonus, not per level). At which point you get AFs sat on every gate in lowsec tackling anything bigger than a frig that comes through. Mechanics that increase the number of unavoidable gatecamps is hardly a good idea.
Alex Medvedov wrote:Combination of rockets and the ability to equip two webs is bad imho - its far too great advantage for a ship without tracking and range issues (dont forget Hawks range bonus). I do actually agree to a certain extent. The hawk in its current form is slightly too strong, especially once the Enyo's tank gets reduced slightly. But then, that's what testing is for.
Personally I'm in favour of reducing the base shields slightly. Obviously removing the 5th mid would immediately solve the issue, but that then makes it impossible to fit a decent active tank and still have the single web that a rocket ship requires (obviously talking about fits that don't require deadspace shield boosters worth 3 times the cost of the hull here). If you're going to do that then may as well change the active tanking bonus (not an _awful_ idea, but I do like the variety of styles AFs offer)
Alex Medvedov wrote:As for Tawa Suyo: I have never said MWD sig bonus is a bad thing, just it will not help AFs much. If the idea was -to give some role bonus to AFs but dont give them much...well iam content. Makes the AFs viable in nullsec solo work and fleet work. Doesn't harm them or overpower them on lowsec AB only fits.
It helps AFs massively in areas they're currently not used due to their huge sig/slow speed while in no way affecting the areas they currently excel in.
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Edit: How big is the SiSi patch, seems I might have to burn my months BW allowance to save Eve from dilettante frig pilots? If you copy across your existing install and use SiSi launcher? Maybe 1gb.
Please, do come onto SiSi, could always use more pilots to test these things. Who's your main btw so we know it's you?
(Oh, and SiSi launcher is here; http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Sisi_Launcher ) |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
98
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 17:17:00 -
[257] - Quote
Tawa Suyo wrote:Alex Medvedov wrote:Combination of rockets and the ability to equip two webs is bad imho - its far too great advantage for a ship without tracking and range issues (dont forget Hawks range bonus). I do actually agree to a certain extent. The hawk in its current form is slightly too strong, especially once the Enyo's tank gets reduced slightly. But then, that's what testing is for. Personally I'm in favour of reducing the base shields slightly. Obviously removing the 5th mid would immediately solve the issue, but that then makes it impossible to fit a decent active tank and still have the single web that a rocket ship requires (obviously talking about fits that don't require deadspace shield boosters worth 3 times the cost of the hull here). If you're going to do that then may as well change the active tanking bonus (not an _awful_ idea, but I do like the variety of styles AFs offer)
Agree about the Hawk. It's the passive tanked ones that are so strong (which are most likely using that 2x Medium Shield Extender II setup that was being talked about early in the thread).
|
Tawa Suyo
The Tuskers
12
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 17:25:00 -
[258] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Agree about the Hawk. It's the passive tanked ones that are so strong (which are most likely using that 2x Medium Shield Extender II setup that was being talked about early in the thread).
Dual webs/MSE.
Can use rage rockets and actually get full dps out of them vs a frig and still has an MSE tank.
Dual web harpy you can deal with because it sacrifices its tank for that control (even with the new resistance bonus) and has less projection.
Removing a mid and swapping the shield boost bonus for a resist one would do it, but then it basically makes the hawk/harpy the same ship which is kind of dull. |
Ava Starfire
Teraa Matar
180
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 17:41:00 -
[259] - Quote
frankly, 5 mids on any frigate is a terrible idea. You are allowing the great trinity of web/scram/prop, plus, in caldari ships, MSE.... and a extra mid.
Ever fight a hookbill with ECM on it? How about one with 2 webs?
Yeah. Now give it T2 resists.
ECM works well at the frigate scale, even on unbonused ships, simply because it has such a high chance of working against a low sensor strength target. Or 2 webs... now hawk kills all harpies/enyo/jaguar/ishkur without cracking a sweat.
It cannot be said enough.
4th bonus. Yes please! I look forward to being able to finally kill drones in my wolf without having to expose myself via kiting the drone to incoming fire from the launching ship. 4th bonus is good. We like.
MWD Bonus? Sure, why not. It will encourage me to explore in null more than i do now, and to do so in a ship I am confident in flying. It will also help make some very viable heavy tacklers, expecially the jaguar.
Tweaking base stats? Ok... some ships are notoriously hard to fit.
Extra slots? ECM or dualweb hawks, Enyo with web (although enyo is a special case... its almost useless without a web, with it, will be OP... hmm. Maybe give it third mid, lower its DPS or tank?) and admittedly, the poor Retribution needs a 2nd mid. Move 5th high to 2nd mid, move 1 low on the enyo to third mid? |
Kai Jyokoroi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 18:17:00 -
[260] - Quote
Jesus christ it's BONUSES stop trying to sound clever by appending latinate suffixes to make words which literally don't exist |
|
Kai Jyokoroi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 18:20:00 -
[261] - Quote
Also please give the Ishkur like 10/15m3 more drone space so it can pop a couple of mediums out with its lights |
Gempei
Siberian Khatru. Shadow Operations.
23
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 18:20:00 -
[262] - Quote
Alex Medvedov wrote:1) Proposed changes are too powerful no, they are ASSAULT frigates. |
Ava Starfire
Teraa Matar
180
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 19:08:00 -
[263] - Quote
Gempei wrote:Alex Medvedov wrote:1) Proposed changes are too powerful no, they are ASSAULT frigates.
Gonna call it a hunch... but something tells me Mr. Medvedov knows quite well what they are. |
Zarnak Wulf
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
203
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 19:12:00 -
[264] - Quote
First - let me say I like the changes. Other ships are going to have to get balanced though.
Moar Testing:
Jaguar -
The Jaguar has lost some of it's mojo. Before you could argue that it's web and point allowed it to control the range via a Wolf along with having a superior tank. Now - it's just not there. With only three turrets it's outperformed by many of the other AF. I tried an artillery version. I squeezed a full 1k alpha onto it - just a tad bit more then 50% of what the Thrasher can do. I can honestly only see it being used in such away against interceptors and faction frigates in such a way. Even with the tracking bonus it just doesn't spit out enough damage against armored targets.
Enyo -
High: Light Nuetrons II x 4 Arbalest Rocket Launcher Med: Catalyzed Cold - Gas Arcjet Thrusters Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor Named Scrambler Low: F85 Damage System Adaptive Nano II Reactive Plate II MFS II Rigs: Hybrid Burst Hybrid Collision
387 DPS overheated with faction AM plus a drone. So 407 DPS with around 8.5k EHP. The Gank Catalyst - fit w/ MWD and scrambler - gets 534 DPS with 3.75 EHP. That EHP sucks. I can go to smaller guns and a DC and get 502 DPS with 5.66 EHP. Meh. Or 6.83 EHP with 366 DPS - less then the Enyo with both DPS and EHP. The point is that the Catalyst is a one trick pony that doesn't work. You can get nice face-melting DPS but have absolutely no staying power. I would not pick it over an Enyo. The latter is smaller with alot more EHP. It gets the majority of the Catalyst's DPS without the fitting issues. And compare it to the Thrasher which can achieve 400 DPS with 9k EHP. The Catalyst needs more of a fitting grid. Here's a clue: you need more then 12.5 PG difference between the Catalyst and Enyo to fit double the turrets.
Here's a more obvious example. Tested on SISSI:
Sniper Harpy: High: 150mm II x 4 Empty High Slot Mid: Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters TC II Sensor Booster II x 2 Low: MFS II TE II x 2 Rigs: Hybrid Burst Hybrid Collision
103km lock range. It can hit out that far w/ 100 DPS too. Antimatter is 234 DPS with 28.6 km optimal. Recently I had a 150mm Cormorant assist some FW mates in killing other destroyers/frigates coming into a plex. That fit was:
Sniper Corm: High: 150mm II x 7 Mid: AB II TC II x 2 Sensor Booster II Low: MFS II Rigs: Ancillary Current Router x 2 Ionic Field Projector
For 30 More DPS, the Corm exchanges 16km of lock range, 2km of optimal range, scan res almost half of the Harpy's, less EHP, a much larger sig radius, and a whopping 657m/s compared to 2199m/s. It's not even a contest. Again, the Corm has 6.25 more PG to fit 3 extra turrets.
Summary - I love the AF changes. CCP has more work to do on the Catalyst and Cormorant to make them worthwile. |
Kai Jyokoroi
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 19:13:00 -
[265] - Quote
The Vengeance is one of the poorest performers for PVP, doing short-range DPS similar to a Rifter.
Its armour resist and cap bonuses are not enough to keep a point and MWD active at once, and whatever tank it has is nullified by its larger signature radius. Even changing it from the rocket bonus to a missile RoF bonus, nobody is going to fly it - an extra high slot is absolutely not what is needed. |
Tawa Suyo
The Tuskers
12
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 19:14:00 -
[266] - Quote
Ava Starfire wrote:frankly, 5 mids on any frigate is a terrible idea.
Quite. Mid slots are incredibly powerful on a frigate level. While it's one thing adding them to ships that are low on them (retri/enyo), adding a 5th to the hawk is problematic
Ava Starfire wrote:Ever fight a hookbill with ECM on it?
The problem there isn't with the hookbill, it's with the ECM (but that's an entirely seperate issue).
Ava Starfire wrote:Or 2 webs... now hawk kills all harpies/enyo/jaguar/ishkur without cracking a sweat.
A tank fit ishkur with Warrior IIs cause some issues for the hawk, but it's very, very close, coming down largely to pilot SP. With perfect SP for both it'd be difficult to call, but probably ever so slightly favour the Hawk.
However, that's an aside, the Hawk still seems to be the top AF with these changes, largely due to the extra mid. There is a problem with not having it tho in that currently unless you're fitting deadspace modules that cost three times the hull (and if we're doing that, why not balance everything for everyone having HG implants/multiple link alts/POS'd titan boosters/etc) an active tanked Hawk has to forgo the web to fit a good active tank (either small shield booster+MSE for a mixed active/passive fit or a medium shield booster/cap booster for a pure active fit).
This is a huge issue for a slow rocket ship since you're losing any range control (not a massive issue with the projection of rockets, but it does result in everything that can't kill you just disengaging) as well as reducing it's effective dps (due to the ability of an ab frig or even a fast propless fit to be moving quicker than the explosion velocity.
While this could be solved by changing the shield boost bonus to a resist bonus and removing a mid, this would result in the hawk and harpy effectively being the same ship with different weapons (and due to the inherent lack of falloff/tracking on rockets, would render the harpy obsolete). I like variety in ship choices and a true active tank frigate is a nice option to have.
As such, best idea I can think of would be to remove a mid (possibly adding a low albeit with fairly restrictive fitting room to avoid too many dps mods) and to change the shield boosting bonus to x% reduction to shield booster cap usage per level (obviously numbers would need to be tested, but ideally enough that it could run an MSB with a nos going but not so much that the shield boosting effectively became free). This would keep the hawk as 'the active tank' AF, but allow an active hawk to fit a web for range control/achieving true dps without the insane levels currently available. Obviously this would also still allow people to ignore the bonus and fit a passive web hawk if they wished (for neut/alpha survival) as well as a duel web hawk if they really wanted the dps/range control, but with the disadvantage of a pitiful tank to make up for it.
This would also avoid the Hawk being too similar to the Harpy as well as leaving the Hookbill as a viable option as the '5 mid rocket ship' (something that is ~slightly~ more forgiveable in the case of the hookbill due to the weaker dps/tank).
Just bouncing ideas tho, as with anything, this would obviously need play testing to balance the numbers/concept.
Ava Starfire wrote:Extra slots? ECM or dualweb hawks, Enyo with web (although enyo is a special case... its almost useless without a web, with it, will be OP... hmm. Maybe give it third mid, lower its DPS or tank?) and admittedly, the poor Retribution needs a 2nd mid. Move 5th high to 2nd mid, move 1 low on the enyo to third mid? Honestly, the extra slots are generally fairly balanced. They bring the bottom tier AFs that were unusable before up to the standards of the better ones without overpowering the currently stronger AFs (above issues with the Hawk aside).
The fact that the Enyo is a little too strong is already known, mostly due to the tank/gank being a bit better than the other ships. A gank focussed blaster AF is a great idea (and as a blaster ship, it kind of needs the web to do this). The issue arises from the increase in armour at the same time.
You should come on SiSi and test all the new ships out for yourself, other than some slight numbers tweaking being needed (enyo strong, jag weak, retri weak) the extra slots don't really unbalance anything (and if anything, bring the ships closer in line as a class) with, again, the obvious exception of the Hawk.
This isn't meant as a 'well have you played them?' challenge in the slightest (ok, a little in that it's an invitation to try them to see what I mean), but mostly it'd just be really good to have more frigate specialists on SiSi running these things through their paces to work out what needs balancing before they go live.
SiSi Launcher can be downloaded from; http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Sisi_Launcher
Once you're installed and on, there's an ingame channel called 'moveme' which in theory you can join to get yourself and your current ship automatically moved to the staging system. However, the bot has been somewhat intermittent for the last few days, so if it isn't working the staging system is 6-CZ49 in Syndicate. You should be ok to just autopilot there if you need to since the rest of the universe is somewhat empty (and even if it weren't, non-consensual pvp outside the staging system is banned). However, if you do autopilot then you may want to set destination to a station 1 or 2 jumps out, this being eve and all...
Only thing you really need to bring is faction ammo since everything else you'd possibly need for testing is seeded on the market in the staging system.
Seriously, come help test these things :) |
Ava Starfire
Teraa Matar
180
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 19:26:00 -
[267] - Quote
Will do. Patching sisi now.
Ava |
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
20
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 19:33:00 -
[268] - Quote
I look forward to seeing you there ava! |
Dinta Zembo
Snuff Box
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 19:34:00 -
[269] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:The Hawk is still broken. ... it's a ship that looks awesome in theory, until you try putting modules on it and realize that nothing fits.
Quote:[Hawk, Zee lulz boat] Domination Ballistic Control System Pseudoelectron Containment Field I
Coreli C-Type 1MN Afterburner Medium Shield Booster II Dark Blood Warp Scrambler Imperial Navy Small Capacitor Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer II Small Core Defence Operational Solidifier I
Or cheap
Quote:[Hawk, Zee lulz boat copy 1] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II
1MN Afterburner II Medium Shield Booster II J5b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Thorn Rage Rocket Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Small Core Defence Operational Solidifier I
A little eft warrioring and they can both hold a web in the 5th mid (the cheap one has 19 free cpu with a named DCU + 10 from the changes = plenty of room). The faction one is a bit tight but its faction already so might as well give it a faction web lol. |
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
66
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 19:58:00 -
[270] - Quote
Unrelated post for those of you who are getting posts eaten by the forums. After you've hit reply, if it doesnt show up, hit back and your text should be back in the dialog box on reload. CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai www.promsrage.com |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |