EVE Search - Assault Ships - 4th Bonus and Retribution Fix

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Assault Ships - 4th Bonus and Retribution Fix

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 3	Posted - 2011.11.26 07:59:00 - [1] - Quote As we all know, CCP is planning to add a long-awaited 4th bonus to the ships of the Assault Ship class sometime after the main Crucible release. No details have yet been decided upon (at least publically), so I hereby submit the following proposal which includes a well-conceived 4th bonus for all Assault Ships, as well as an overhaul to the Retribution and slight tweak to the Vengeance, separate from the ship bonii. Everyone is familiar with the main complaint surrounding Assault Ships and their lack of a 4th bonus however, two ships in the lineup also suffer greatly from some design inconsistency; the Retribution (or the "one mid-slot wonder"), and the Vengeance (the only Assault Ship with less powergrid than its Tech-1 counterpart). Fixing this along with issuing a fair 4th bonus to each ship is my goal, and I'll do it in one post. Without further ado, the changes. =================================== Amarr - Retribution -1 high-slot, to be exchanged for +1 mid slot. Also, minus 1 turret, for a new total of 3 turrets. (Stay with me folks.) New slot layout 4 High-slots (3 turrets, 0 launchers), 2 Mid-slots, 5 Low-slots (It would be necessary to set the Retribution model to have the same turret layout as the Punisher/Vengeance.) +10tf to base CPU of Retribution, to a total of 135tf. Mid-slot modules generally require more CPU than guns and so the draw on the ships computer is only partially negated by removing a turret-slot. This is still noticably less than the Vengeance's base of 160tf, but a good deal more than the Punisher's 115tf. New CPU total with Electronics V = 168.75tf Add new bonus; 5% to small energy turret rate-of-fire per level of Amarr Frigate. This is in line with the Retri's bigger brother, the Zealot. Change bonus; increase small energy turret damage from 5% to 10% per level of Assault Ships. This change is necessary in order to counter-act the removal of a turret-slot, a fact which is not fully made up for by the new rate-of-fire bonus. If we are to assume the 4th bonus would have improved the Retribution over the pre-Crucible Retribution, this seems like a logical step. Result: The Retribution has its role as the small Amarrian gunboat preserved and enhanced with the ability to fit both a speed module and a propulsion jamming module. The new rate-of-fire bonus and increased damage per shot yield a net increase of approximately 12% DPS despite having a turret-slot removed. A utility high-slot was spared in order to allow the fitting of energy neutralizers/nosferatus/transfers, what was previously the ship's only saving grace. Amarr - Vengeance Move 5% armor resistance bonus from level of Assault Ships to level of Amarr Frigate. In all other cases where this bonus is applied, it comes from the Tech-1 ship skill and not the Tech-2. Add new bonus; 5% to missile launcher rate-of-fire per level of Assault Ships. Consistent with the Vengeance's bigger brother, the Sacrilege. +6MW to base powergrid of Vengeance, to a total of 49MW. With all Level V skills and Tech-2 equipment, one should be able to fit an afterburner, 4 rocket launchers, a 400mm armor plate and the remaining slots with 1MW modules without upgrading the powergrid. It should NOT be possible to do the same with standard missile launchers. New powergrid total with Engineering V (Assault Ships pre-req) = 61.25MW. No change to CPU - it is already an ideal limiting factor in preventing long-range / heavy-tank combination. See next post for remaining ships...
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 3	Posted - 2011.11.26 07:59:00 - [2] - Quote Continued from first post... Caldari - Harpy Add new bonus; 5% to shield resistances per level of Caldari Frigate. In all other cases where this bonus is applied, it comes from the Tech-1 ship skill and not the Tech-2. This positions the Harpy as the superior passive tanker compared to the Hawk and fits in with the bonuses applied to other Ishukone combat vessels, namely the Eagle and Vulture. Caldari - Hawk Move 7.5% to shield boost amount bonus from level of Assault Ships to level of Caldari Frigate. In all other cases where this bonus is applied, it comes from the Tech-1 ship skill and not the Tech-2. Add new bonus; 5% to missile launcher rate-of-fire per level of Assault Ships. This bonus is consistent with the Hawk's bigger brother, the Cerberus. Gallente - Ishkur Add new bonus; 5% to drone hitpoints and damage per level of Gallente Frigate. In all other cases where a similar bonus is applied, it comes from the Tech-1 ship skill and not the the Tech-2. This is consistent with other CreoDron vessels like the Ishtar and Sin. Note: the 25% increase in damage only applies to one of the Ishkur's two weapon systems. Total DPS increase varies depending on the guns and ammunition used. Gallente - Enyo Add new bonus; 7.5% to armor repair system repair amount per level of Gallente Frigate. In all other cases where this bonus is applied, it comes from the Tech-1 ship skill and not the Tech-2. Swap T2 manufacturers with the Nemesis. Duvolle Labs makes gunboats, Roden Shipyards makes missile boats. Models with this change (red Nemesis, green/gold Enyo) have been found in the assets folder. Make it happen! Minmatar - Jaguar Add new bonus; 5% to small projectile turret tracking speed per level of Minmatar Frigate. This promotes use of setups involving artillery which can complement the Jaguar's pre-existing optimal bonus. It also reduces the need for the Jaguar pilot to slow down when engaging small/fast targets; they say anything a Minmatar pilot has to slow down to do isn't worth doing. Minmatar - Wolf Add new bonus; 5% to small projectile turret optimal per level of Minmatar Frigate. Self-explanatory; this noticably extends the range of artillery without infringing on the roles of the Jaguar and Thrasher. Bonus is consistent with the Wolf's bigger brother, the Muninn. Discuss! I'm very much looking forward to reading feedback on this topic.
GuRasta Esokal Command Vera Cruz Alliance 3	Posted - 2011.11.26 08:19:00 - [3] - Quote support for vengence and retribution by why would you put optimal on a wolf? you don't arty fit a wolf... not to mention a wolf can already solo a sabre(seen it a few times), does it make sense that the minnie assault ship can solo the mini frig killer? not really, make it a falloff bonus to wolf and give t2 destroyers a better tank so they cant be solod by a frig imo
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 3	Posted - 2011.11.26 08:47:00 - [4] - Quote Hi GuRasta, thanks for commenting! After seeing your post and discussing the Wolf with a corp-mate, I've decided to change the new bonus to a tracking bonus. Unfortunately I can't support another falloff bonus like you said, as that would give the Wolf a double-falloff bonus (unprecedented thus far in EVE), and I think a tracking bonus much like what I'm suggesting for the Jaguar would go a long way to fleshing out the Wolf. I've also increased the tracking bonus to 7.5% per level for both, in line with the Rifters they're based on. Thanks for your input!
Naomi Knight Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 59	Posted - 2011.11.26 08:55:00 - [5] - Quote whre is the lower caldari hacs signature to matar lvl??
Sigras Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N 55	Posted - 2011.11.26 09:46:00 - [6] - Quote ++ for the vengeance while I see this boost as a step in the right direction, It still doesnt give assault ships a role that cant be fulfilled better by their interceptor counterparts . . . I see them fulfilling a role such as heavy tackle, but the problem seems twofold: 1. Theyre too slow with an AB and too easy to kill with an MWD 2. Neuts are lethal and can prevent them from doing their heavy tackle job Maybe you see them for a different role than I do but I just dont see them fulfilling a damage role when there are such tougher higher damage ships out there.
Alticus C Bear University of Caille Gallente Federation 13	Posted - 2011.11.26 14:05:00 - [7] - Quote Swawping out the utility high slot on the retribution certainley makes sense. I still feel that they need the afterburner bonus previously suggested, perhaps it was over powered but at least 10% per level giving a 50% overall bonus, but personally i do not feel it is overpowered given the destroyer buff and the new tier 3 battlecruisers. I would give that to half then give the other half an active tank bonus but perhaps at an increased rate. I think this works towards the heavy tackle approach either through speed or active repair. Vengeance - 15% bonus to Afterburner speed Retribution - 15% bonus to Armour repair amount Hawk - 15% bonus to shield boost amount Harpy - 15% bonus to Afterburner speed Ishkur - 15% bonus to Armour repair amount Enyoy - 15% bonus to Afterburner speed Jaguar - 15% bonus to shield boost amount Wolf - 15% bonus to Afterburner speed
StukaBee GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 41	Posted - 2011.11.26 15:15:00 - [8] - Quote Sigras wrote: ++ for the vengeance while I see this boost as a step in the right direction, It still doesnt give assault ships a role that cant be fulfilled better by their interceptor counterparts . . . This is the major problem with assault frigs. Not the lack of a 4th bonus, although it would be nice to have, but the fact that they just don't have a reason to exist. Give them an actual battlefield role (note: this may hypothetically involve, for example, nerfing interceptors to create a niche that assault frigs would then occupy) where they actually excel at something.
Katrina Oniseki Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 178	Posted - 2011.11.26 15:23:00 - [9] - Quote I LOVE ALL THE IDEAS.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 152	Posted - 2011.11.26 17:12:00 - [10] - Quote Wow, you suggest a whopping 12% damage increase for the Retribution .. so generous. Why not give it a 30%+ increase like you do the others I wonder? And designing a ship like the Vengeance which is bonused to ACTIVE REP (huge cap recharge) for a buffer fit without replacing the cap bonus .. what the hell man. Why do you suddenly want to make the Gallente utility AF into an OP damage platform? Enyo should NEVER be outdamaged by Ishkur .. at least not by design. Active tanking is dead, dead, dead. It is way too late to start adding bonuses for it on any ship, least of all a cap using gun ship. Might be worth doing if/when CCP gets around to doing the hard balancing jobs and redesigns the buffer/active relationship but that is several years in the future at least. Minnies are already cream of the crop and should be baseline for the others .. adding tracking (or anything combat related for that matter) gives us the exact same scenario as the AB Boost would have done .. 90% of all AFs in space will be Jags/Wolves. Hawk with 33% damage increase .. yeah that will go down well. It just got a massive buff when using racial ammo, that suggestion just plain breaks it. Only semi-reasonable suggestion is for the Harpy. Doesn't break it too much and still leaves counters available. In Short: Came expecting bloody lame gank/tank suggestions and was not disappointed. Dime a dozen. My take: Damage AFs = More damage and ganglink fitting bonus. Utility AFs = better cap plus RR range and efficiency bonus
tankus2 Endless Destruction Imperial Ascension 14	Posted - 2011.11.26 17:54:00 - [11] - Quote I think the biggest problem people have when dealing with assault frigates is that they try to make them do something they were not intended to do. They may be frigates, but the laugh at the concepts of 'speed' and 'ewar' or 'tackle'. They let those 'other frigates' do that (inties). They are here for one thing and that is to stuff as many shells into the enemy's every pore in as short of time as possible. to clarify: they are dps killing machines. Perhaps their role is too niche. They are perfect for frigate gangs, which is where the Electronic Attack Ships also shine. Here, they are the biggest guns and are supposed to deal the most damage, making all other ships feel inept with their lack of damage output. Hell, AFs are supposed to outdamage t1 cruisers and threaten BCs! When the AFs are not throwing incredible amounts of dps, they instead are harden rocks of frigates to shoot at, designed to laugh at the damage thrown out by other vessels (to a limit!). Now, looking back at the beginning or opening post, I have to agree with everything, even the hawk retaining its shield boost bonus, as that would put it somewhere between the golem and cerb when it comes down to bonuses. Where the science gets done
Forest Baltar Orion's Fist RED.Legion 1	Posted - 2011.11.26 21:20:00 - [12] - Quote Nice job Cobalt! Well thought through, and quite fair. I agree with all of your changes proposed. However, I do believe that the Wolf/Jaaaaaaaag is already the most popular AF, and is quite powerful and capable in and of itself at this moment. I understand that the additional bonuses you outlined for the Wolf/Jaaaaaaag are necessary in the interest of fairness, but if I could have it any other way, balancing of the Wolf/Jaaaaaaaag would be needed to level the field in comparison to the other races. Also, your proposed Retribution fix quite positively needs to happen. If CCP pay attention to this post and decide to go ahead with some/all of your changes, I would definitely be down for using the Ishkur or Enyo in the proper roles outlined by its design. +1 Cobalt; I sincerely hope they (CCP) take a good long look at your post, and provide some feedback into the feasibility of all of this. Cheers, Forest
mxzf Shovel Bros 167	Posted - 2011.11.26 23:25:00 - [13] - Quote These changes seem fairly decent actually. I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but I do like the general ideas outlined.
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 8	Posted - 2011.11.26 23:42:00 - [14] - Quote Hirana Yoshida wrote: Wow, you suggest a whopping 12% damage increase for the Retribution .. so generous. Why not give it a 30%+ increase like you do the others I wonder? And designing a ship like the Vengeance which is bonused to ACTIVE REP (huge cap recharge) for a buffer fit without replacing the cap bonus .. what the hell man. Why do you suddenly want to make the Gallente utility AF into an OP damage platform? Enyo should NEVER be outdamaged by Ishkur .. at least not by design. Active tanking is dead, dead, dead. It is way too late to start adding bonuses for it on any ship, least of all a cap using gun ship. Might be worth doing if/when CCP gets around to doing the hard balancing jobs and redesigns the buffer/active relationship but that is several years in the future at least. Minnies are already cream of the crop and should be baseline for the others .. adding tracking (or anything combat related for that matter) gives us the exact same scenario as the AB Boost would have done .. 90% of all AFs in space will be Jags/Wolves. Hawk with 33% damage increase .. yeah that will go down well. It just got a massive buff when using racial ammo, that suggestion just plain breaks it. Hirana, I can see you are as passionate about these ships as I am, but I think you might have misread some of the stats. The Retribution's increase of 12% is accurate however, no ship receives more than a 25% increase in damage and those are only in the lower-damage dealing versions. The Vengeance is the utility frigate of the two, yet all its high-slots are occupied. With a slight increase in damage for missiles via the new rate-of-fire bonus inherited from the Sacrilege, it makes more sense now to take away a launcher and replace it with a neutralizer, using that extra capacitor for something other than armor repair. The Ishkur's damage bonus is not the 10% per level that the Vexor, Ishtar, Dominix and several other drone ships receive but a more conservative 5%. This means at best, your 5 Hobgoblin IIs (highest damage light drone and all that fits out of the Ishkur) would do at most 124 DPS. Considering the Ishkur can also do about that level of damage with its guns, it still slots in just below the Enyo for raw damage, and means the damage increase in a balanced fit is only - you guessed it - around 12%. The only way it's even a 25% damage increase is if you choose to run the Ishkur without guns, which I don't recommend. The Enyo's bonus comes partly from what I suggested as a. I think propogating the bonus to this level will further push CCP to improve active tanking. The only other options left would be to issue the never-before-seen third damage bonus or a tackling bonus, which will upset more people... "combat frigates with EWAR bonuses, don't we have those?" The Hawk has had at maximum, a 25% increase in damage (via rate-of-fire), not 33%. This would push a perfectly skilled Hawk from 111 DPS to 140 DPS with a balanced fit. Hardly game-breaking. Standard missile DPS is 20% less than rockets to begin with, so the changes simply improve the damage of the Hawk noticably beyond the Kestrel, which I doubt anyone will argue against. Finally, the Minmatar ships. As I mentioned, I'm not looking to set precedent by giving a third damage bonus and these are already decent gunboats. Giving them the tracking bonus from the ship they're based on (the Rifter; 5% to small projectile turret damage per level and 7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level) improves their continuity in the lineup and corrects deficiencies. Realistically, would the Minmatar Republic commission Rifter-variants that can't swivel their guns as quickly? It does nothing to improve damage in a scenario where you would already be getting peak damage and widens the range so misses in range are less common. Also, I considered a velocity bonus for the Jaguar (being the baby Vagabond) however, it's already the fastest Assault Ship by far. I'm glad you agree with the Harpy proposal, but the rest of the changes are not as drastic on the second read-through I think.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 153	Posted - 2011.11.27 07:59:00 - [15] - Quote For future reference: +25% RoF bonus = +33% dps bonus Just sayin'
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 9	Posted - 2011.11.27 09:03:00 - [16] - Quote CobaltSixty wrote: The Hawk has had at maximum, a 25% increase in damage (via rate-of-fire), not 33%. Hirana Yoshida wrote: For future reference: +25% RoF bonus = +33% dps bonus Just sayin' My issue is with everyone but a select few and myself wanting them to be chips of the old block which is quite frankly boring as hell. There is tons more fun to be had if the lights got a logistics platform rather than making them into generic mini-cruisers, the T1 cruiser line is under more than enough pressure as it is after pirate revamp, navy cruisers and the upcoming destroyer over-buff. Hirana, thank you for catching some fuzzy math in my calculations. My apologies; I had recently woken up and just plain missed it. I'm going to edit those statements from the reply post as well as integrate that into the 3rd revision I'm planning. I still call for the rate-of-fire bonuses, however. The Hawk and Vengeance will still be pulling up the rear of the pack (amongst Assault Ships) for damage with a 33% increase even when fitting specifically for damage. Regarding the role of these ships, I don't see them as being threatened by the upcoming destroyer buff as they're stil going to be inferior tankers and missing a slot. Assault Ships are a stepping stone on the way to Heavy Assault Cruisers whose role no one has serious problems with - they're simply effective at different levels. I do agree that a small-scale logistics platform would be a valuable addition to small ship warfare, but they should be based on the mining frigates just as the logistics cruisers were based on the mining/utility cruisers. Assault Ships - Retribution-áFix and 4th Bonus Proposals
Alex Medvedov Gunpoint Diplomacy 0	Posted - 2011.11.27 11:34:00 - [17] - Quote As a dedicated AF pilot I have to applaud you sir! The changes you are proposing seems to be well ballanced, useful and not game breaking. Only thing i can add is that you might consider swapping the Jaguar-¦s optimal bonus for the Wolf-¦s falloff bonus from which in my opinion would benefit both of them. As for the other opinions in the discussion - please do not try to give Jaguar bonus to shield boost amount - you would be surprised how few Jaguars are actually fitted as active tanks:) Jaguar or Wolf capabilities are in no way off the board in comparison with other AFs. Jaguar might be nowadays the most versatile AF, and thats maybe why it is so popular but still it can be bested by Hawk, Iskhur, Vengeance or Harpy, quite easily.
Alex Medvedov Gunpoint Diplomacy 0	Posted - 2011.11.27 11:50:00 - [18] - Quote Double post
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 10	Posted - 2011.11.27 11:57:00 - [19] - Quote Alex Medvedov wrote: As for the other opinions in the discussion - please do not try to give Jaguar bonus to shield boost amount - you would be surprised how few Jaguars are actually fitted as active tanks:) Just as I make that very change, haha. Still, I stand by it. Aside from designating a clear tanking vessel for the Minmatar in this category, being able to choose a bonused active tank will assist in keeping the vessel's signature down and encourage active tanking setups which admittedly, don't make much sense at the moment as you said. It also takes nothing away from the ship - pilots will be able to choose if they wish for the same passive tank as before or a stronger active one with a caveat that your ship will now be much more susceptible to capacitor warfare. Thank you for the kind words though. Progress is being made on this topic and hopefully soon enough CCP will take notice. Cheers! Assault Ships - Retribution-áFix and 4th Bonus Proposals
Alex Medvedov Gunpoint Diplomacy 0	Posted - 2011.11.27 12:08:00 - [20] - Quote CobaltSixty wrote: Alex Medvedov wrote: As for the other opinions in the discussion - please do not try to give Jaguar bonus to shield boost amount - you would be surprised how few Jaguars are actually fitted as active tanks:) Just as I make that very change, haha. Still, I stand by it. Aside from designating a clear tanking vessel for the Minmatar in this category, being able to choose a bonused active tank will assist in keeping the vessel's signature down and encourage active tanking setups which admittedly, don't make much sense at the moment as you said. It also takes nothing away from the ship - pilots will be able to choose if they wish for the same passive tank as before or a stronger active one with a caveat that your ship will now be much more susceptible to capacitor warfare. Thank you for the kind words though. Progress is being made on this topic and hopefully soon enough CCP will take notice. Cheers! Yep i have read your post perhaps more hastily than i should:)) I have corrected my statement now... The problem is, Jaguars nowadays excel as heavy tacklers. By introducing that "stupid shield boost bonus"(tm) you are either forcing Jag-¦s pilots to disregard the bonus or to depart from the role Jaguars had been so succesful in. Besically with your bonus you are not helping Jaguars at all, you are paradixically nerfing them:) Side note, this post was not ment to be as offensive as it might be understood:))
Alex Medvedov Gunpoint Diplomacy 0	Posted - 2011.11.27 12:18:00 - [21] - Quote Double post again, geez i sucks:))
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 11	Posted - 2011.11.27 19:24:00 - [22] - Quote Bump! I've recommended a boost to the Jaguar's base capacitor amount in order to bring it in line with its elite status as well as the new active tanking role I have proposed for it. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Zarnak Wulf Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 109	Posted - 2011.11.27 21:03:00 - [23] - Quote I like alot of your ideas and it's very apparent you put alot of thought into this thread. I am quite passionate about AF myself so bear with me here. Retribution - Small ships don't get ROF bonuses. Those are usually reserved to cruisers and up. Small ships usually get a tracking bonus where their larger cousins get the ROF bonus. I would give the Retribution a 7.5% per level tracking bonus. I also like it better as a 5-2-4 setup with four turrets. I'm sure this sends the math to hell. Vengeance - This one always drove me crazy. Again my thoughts are against the ROF bonus. Maybe an explosion velocity bonus instead? I'm not an expert on this ship but I don't see ROF bonuses going live for the reason I stated above. Harpy - Luv it! Hawk - Frigate bonus: 10% bonus per level for kinetic missile damage, 5% bonus per level for EM, Thermal, Explosive missile damage. AF bonus: 10% missile flight time per level. 7.5% shield resistance per level. This is a better balance between the frigate bonuses and the cerb flavour. Ishkur - Luv it! Enyo - In it's current form it sucks in all ways compared to the Wolf. Here is my favorite Wolf setup: High: 200mm II x 4 Small Nuet II Med: Catalyzed Coldgas Arcjet Thrusters Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler Low: F85 Damage Control Gyro II TE II Adaptive Nano II Rigs: Projectile Burst Projectile Collision Overheated it does 294 DPS overheated with 12km of falloff. And you just added a tracking bonus to it. When you create an Enyo with a Light Nuetron II rack, a MFS II, and the hybrid burst and collision rigs- you get 306 DPS overheated - gun to gun - with only a fraction of the range. The Enyo IMHO needs a second damage bonus. Also any frigate that needs cap AND to go into scram range should stay away from active tanking. That's a recipe for frustration. Jaguar and Wolf: The Jaguar is technically supposed to be an artillery boat. It's not because most like it's heavy tackling functionality. Another reason is small artillery without a tracking bonus is pointless. There's lots of thoughts floating around these two ships. One is to swap the optimal and falloff bonuses between the two. Add a tracking bonus to both. Done. Another is to give the Jaguar a 5% velocity per level boost. Give the wolf tracking. Most Minmatar pilots are going to view a shield boost Jaguar as a nerf though. The usual fit involves 150mm II, an MSE, web, and point. Active tanking for a frigate in scram range is suicide. Many favorite PvP fits - especially among Minmatar - is to fit a nuet.
Alex Medvedov Gunpoint Diplomacy 0	Posted - 2011.11.28 08:27:00 - [24] - Quote CobaltSixty wrote: Bump! I've recommended a boost to the Jaguar's base capacitor amount in order to bring it in line with its elite status as well as the new active tanking role I have proposed for it. So you are basically trying to redo Jaguars, but why? Unlike the changes of other AFs which are minor (with the exeption of Retribution but that case is well justified) and nicely corresponding with the way those ships are flown, you are proposing to change already excelent passive Jaguar to something ...else. Theres basically no other reason i can see than the shield boost bonus was the only bonus left. Hell you took it from the Hawk - what might be working with missile ship with no tracking issues certainly will not work with the Jag which is having major tracking issues even before your so called boost. Why am i talking about the tracking? You proposition stronghly discourages the use of stasis webbifier which is imho nessesary for a Jag. I simply cannot see reason why not to give a tracking bonus to the Jag. 1) Its very well justfied - Jaguar-¦s T1 predessesor has it, but Jaguar for some reason doesnt. 2) Its needed and will actually help the ship itself. 3) From all proposed bonuses this one is arguably the least game-chaging, taking into account Jaguar is good already. Zarnak Wulf wrote: Most Minmatar pilots are going to view a shield boost Jaguar as a nerf though. My thoughts exactly!
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 13	Posted - 2011.11.28 11:31:00 - [25] - Quote Zarnak and Alex, thank you for your recent input - it has given me much to think about as well as a bangin' headache, but I won't hold that against anyone. Trying to balance a number of different factors including what should be one-race bonii, consistency amongst lineups of Tech-2 manufacturers, preventing Minmatar from being too Winmatar, and making the changes as undisruptive as possible is... troublesome, to say the least. Fret not though, I haven't given up and I'd like to address a couple of points that have been brought up. Zarnak Wulf wrote: Retribution - Small ships don't get ROF bonuses. Those are usually reserved to cruisers and up. Small ships usually get a tracking bonus where their larger cousins get the ROF bonus. I would give the Retribution a 7.5% per level tracking bonus. I also like it better as a 5-2-4 setup with four turrets. I'm sure this sends the math to hell. Vengeance - This one always drove me crazy. Again my thoughts are against the ROF bonus. Maybe an explosion velocity bonus instead? I'm not an expert on this ship but I don't see ROF bonuses going live for the reason I stated above. Hawk - Frigate bonus: 10% bonus per level for kinetic missile damage, 5% bonus per level for EM, Thermal, Explosive missile damage. AF bonus: 10% missile flight time per level. 7.5% shield resistance per level. This is a better balance between the frigate bonuses and the cerb flavour. Small ships don't often get rate-of-fire bonii, but it does happen and I think it should happen more. It does have a greater effect over a plain damage bonus (I'm catching on, honest) but considering which ships we would apply it to, it's not displacing or threatening anyone's role. The different ship bonii in the game are a means to an end, and not having seen one be popular at a particular level isn't sufficient reason to resist/avoid using it, especially if it fixes a problem AND fits with other ships of the same origin. The Retribution is a strange case and that's why it has a very particular fix for it. Giving it a 5-2-4 slot layout as you suggest would make it identical to the Enyo and Wolf with which it competes, and Amarr vessels always have the most amount of low-slots in any given class (plus the Vengeance is already the 4-low AF). For the purposes of fixing it, I considered the low-slots untouchable. Removing a high-slot became the only option and as I pressed further, the removal of a turret was the only way to keep the utility high. I've tried to compensate for the fact that it might upset some Retribution pilots to have 1 less gun on the visual model of the ship. The rate-of-fire bonus I've proposed not only makes up for the missing gun on paper very neatly, but it also means the ship will fire at disco-speed (read: fast!) which is hopefully an acceptable tradeoff. Combine that with the fact that a laser rate-of-fire bonus is present on a number of other Amarr laser boats and I can think of no more simple a fix. As for a tracking bonus for the Retribution, the rate-of-fire bonus only compensates for the turret removal if the damage bonus remains. The Retribution needs the optimal bonus and ever-present laser capacitor-use reduction as well. The only Amarr ship other than the Coercer that has a tracking bonus (which is a non-point because all destroyers do) is the Crusader which makes sense given its position as the fastest Interceptor - it needs the tracking where the Retribution does not. For all those reasons and the fact that Retributions are slow ships for their class, I cannot recommend a tracking bonus for it. Regarding the other two, even the weakest Assault Ship should be capable of dealing similar amounts of damage as the most damaging T1 frigate (the Incursus, with optimal conditions) but this is currently not the case for the Vengeance as well as the Hawk. A Vengeance barely manages 10 DPS over the Inquisitor, its closest T1 analog and then, only while using rockets. The Hawk does equal damage to a Kestrel, and only when using kinetic damage. The changes to these three as well as the Harpy are approaching final as far as my proposal is concerned. The Gallente and Minmatar still need some TLC, though. Alex Medvedov wrote: So you are basically trying to redo Jaguars, but why? Unlike the changes of other AFs which are minor (with the exeption of Retribution but that case is well justified) and nicely corresponding with the way those ships are flown, you are proposing to change already excelent passive Jaguar to something ...else. Theres basically no other reason i can see than the shield boost bonus was the only bonus left. I'm still not convinced that adding this bonus would in any way break the Jaguar's role. Cap stability while shield boosting and tackling would be impossible without use of a nosferatu, but the passive tank would still be just as viable before as after these changes went through. I was (overly) concerned at the lack of an obvious tanking frigate for both Gallente and Amarr and these bonii seemed like a very neat fix. From your reactions as well as conversations with others, I'm seeing it might not be so cut and dry. Frankly, I am no longer happy with the proposed armor repair bonus for the Enyo and I'm not going to force an active tank on just one of the races. As much as I've been trying to limit the amount of changes per hull (save the Retribution, obviously), I think it might be necessary to swap the falloff and optimal bonus between the Wolf and Jaguar respectively, and apply tracking to both - the jury's still out though. Expect to see a version 2 of the Enyo and Wolf as well as a version 3 of the Jaguar within the next day or so. I am adamant that the Hawk be stripped of its shield repair amount bonus and be made to feel more like a smaller Cerberus, so all active tank bonuses will be disappearing from the proposals shortly. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Akara Ito Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 45	Posted - 2011.11.28 13:43:00 - [26] - Quote I'm wondering why you make up all this complicated stuff when all thats needed is a mid for the Retribution and the AB bonus for every Assaultfrig.
Meditril Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact 15	Posted - 2011.11.28 14:15:00 - [27] - Quote Assault ships just need one simple additional bonus to make them unique and fun: 15% webbing imunity per skill level.
Alticus C Bear University of Caille Gallente Federation 14	Posted - 2011.11.28 14:23:00 - [28] - Quote If any ship needs a speed boost it is the enyo this would enable a buffer fit without gimping speed. I would have preferred the active tank bonus for the ishkur, yes it has one less low but I normally have blasters and armour rep on my fits.
Zarnak Wulf Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 109	Posted - 2011.11.28 19:01:00 - [29] - Quote Keeping it simple on Minmatar is probably the way to go. Turning the Wolf into an arty boat would limit it's DPS to around 210 and give the Enyo more room for it's niche. It would still get a 1250ish alpha though. The wolf needs more CPU to really make it work though - 15 more CPU base would do it.
Solinuas Beyond Evil and Good 17	Posted - 2011.11.29 02:17:00 - [30] - Quote I think the retri should keep the 4th turret and loose the utility high so 4-2-5

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.