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)
Corina Jarr Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built 58	Posted - 2011.11.29 03:10:00 - [31] - Quote Just curious, how is the Vengence the Amarr utility AF, when the Ret is the one with the spare high? Only reason it (Veng) has mids is for webs to apply max missile damage. Also, ROF bonus on the Ret is worse than 4 guns, because it means our ammo dies faster (faction and T2).
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 18	Posted - 2011.11.30 12:54:00 - [32] - Quote Solinuas wrote: I think the retri should keep the 4th turret and loose the utility high so 4-2-5 I had considered this as well but it would then be necessary to give a 5th high to the Vengeance and I really don't know how well that would go over with the devs. If this was possible (just giving the Vengeance a new high without any penalties, which it doesn't deserve), I would support a 4-2-5 layout, 4 guns and no spare high for the Retribution as well. This would fit with the dynamic between the Zealot (5 highs, 5 guns) and the Sacrilege (6 highs, 5 launchers). Hmmm... keep your eyes peeled for revisions to the proposals for the Amarr AFs. Corina Jarr wrote: Just curious, how is the Vengence the Amarr utility AF, when the Ret is the one with the spare high? Only reason it (Veng) has mids is for webs to apply max missile damage. Also, ROF bonus on the Ret is worse than 4 guns, because it means our ammo dies faster (faction and T2). Regarding the Vengeance's role, see above. It's generally accepted that whichever one does less damage and has more mid-slots is the more utility-minded version of the two. The fact that all the high-slots are designated for weapons just draws more attention to the fact that the roles are a little skewed at the moment for the Amarr. I'm considering taking the proposal there but, getting a 5th high and 4th bonus (RoF still makes the most sense) would be a significant change (optimization, rather) to the Vengeance's role and would only make sense if the changes to the Retribution were accepted alongside it. As for laser crystal damage, I don't know a laser user who would turn down converting their crystals into volleys faster. Also, consider this; while it might be necessary to buy sets of crystals more often at first, the cost over a short number of crystal lifetimes should be about the same as you require 33% less crystals on replenishment. In fact, because the rate-of-fire increase is only 25% (and its effect on damage is irrelevant for this particular consideration), it would be a little cheaper at/after the 4th set of 3 crystals. Given that crystals net the same amount of shots regardless of the RoF of the turret they're used in, for the same number of volleys the 4-gun Retribution's purchase of the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth crystal comes just a hair earlier than the 3-gun's purchase of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth. This might be a moot point for argument after the next revision, so stay tuned. As always, thank you both for your input. As we answer questions together about the way these ships should be, the changes necessary to bring them in-line with our vision become clearer. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Major Kim The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 0	Posted - 2011.11.30 22:31:00 - [33] - Quote CobaltSixty wrote: Caldari - Hawk (Proposal Version 2) GÇó Remove 7.5% to shield boost amount bonus from level of Assault Ships... GÇó Add new bonus; 10% to missile flight time per level of Caldari Frigate... allows a Hawk to use rockets to a distance of up to 22.8km and standard missiles to 94.9km, identical to the Harpy's maximum range. GÇó Add new bonus; 5% to missile launcher rate-of-fire per level of Assault Ships ... Hey, I'm liking many of the proposed changes, most especially the Hawk. This ship currently will hit 63.3km with standard's and top skills, the same range as a Crow. Additionally the Hawk is currently not doing any more damage per launcher than the Crow or the Kestrel. While this ship would be loosing a tanking bonus, it gains a proper range, and the additional damage that it's missing over the Caldari T1 frigates, (as currently it only has a range advantage). I think the 5% resistance bonus being applied to the harpy further makes up for loosing the shield boost bonus. I also like the bonii of the Ishkur and Enyo, as well as the additional light drone for the Enyo. The changes proposed here are very well thought out. Keep up the good work.
Ninevite Shiva Morsus Mihi 2	Posted - 2011.12.01 02:24:00 - [34] - 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. I think this would severely overpower Jaguars. They are already the fastest AFs and get bonuses for the best weapon type in the game. Minmatar ships don't need more buffs right now considering Gallente and Caldari are becoming increasingly unusable for PvP.
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 19	Posted - 2011.12.01 05:11:00 - [35] - Quote Ninevite wrote: 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. I think this would severely overpower Jaguars. They are already the fastest AFs and get bonuses for the best weapon type in the game. Minmatar ships don't need more buffs right now considering Gallente and Caldari are becoming increasingly unusable for PvP. The vast majority of current Jaguar fits are cap stable unless they involve an energy neutralizer. Yet even with my proposed boost, an afterburning, web/scramming and neuting Jaguar would continue to be unstable, just by a somewhat softer deficit. It is absolutely ludicrous that the Jaguar, which is built with fancy Electrolytic Capacitors (the capacitor component necessary for Minmatar T2) ends up with identical capacity and recharge as the T1 ship it is based on. Moving the Jaguar from 8th place to 7th with respect to capacitor stats will not overpower it so long as the changes to the other ships are accepted as well - you have my word. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Ninevite Shiva Morsus Mihi 2	Posted - 2011.12.01 05:23:00 - [36] - Quote Ah man, if jags really do have the same capacitor as rifters, then they really do need an upgrade. Anyway, I would like to see all AFs get buffs across the board, or maybe have their intended role revisited. They are just so out of place in this game right now
Crazy KSK Tsunami Cartel Dark Solar Empire 11	Posted - 2011.12.01 06:12:00 - [37] - Quote I do like all the changes very much especially the make wolf and arty boat one =) but the enyo needs some more love imo (same as the deimos) and that being one more mid for a web or a cap booster and that totaly out of place optimal bonus changed best for a ROF bonus or second damage one that way it would get fearsome again and dishing out a lot of dps in blaster range and would be able to to hold its targets or keep its active tank running might have to kill its utility high to not make it too powerful tho
Ninevite Shiva Morsus Mihi 2	Posted - 2011.12.01 06:40:00 - [38] - Quote Please answer honestly: Given the current state of the game, do you believe your proposed buffs to Wolfs and Jaguars would make them better than the rest of the assault frigates? In a 1v1 between any assault frigate vs a Wolf/Jaguar, which ship would you normally expect to win? Maybe I am just too focused on calling out minmatar bias, but if you go read your proposed plan, it seems like what you're asking for Minmatar ships far outweighs anything asked for other races. Especially when you ask for nerfs on other ships but propose nothing but buffs in terms of more speed and more dps on minmatar...
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 19	Posted - 2011.12.01 16:14:00 - [39] - Quote Crazy KSK wrote: I do like all the changes very much especially the make wolf and arty boat one =) but the enyo needs some more love imo (same as the deimos) and that being one more mid for a web or a cap booster and that totaly out of place optimal bonus changed best for a ROF bonus or second damage one Hi Crazy, thanks for the feedback! I'd like to address what you brought up about the Enyo - fixes for the Deimos are beyond the scope of this proposal. I don't think it would be acceptable to remove the optimal bonus from the Enyo; currently, all the gunboat-AFs (Harpy, Retribution, Enyo and proposed Wolf) have an optimal bonus, though the Harpy has two but gets no tracking bonus like the others. It seems out of place in the description of a Gallente ship but I think they would be terribly frustrating to fly without it. I also don't think it will be possible to fit a 3rd mid-slot to the Enyo - the Ishkur already has that for Gallente. I do agree that the Enyo's damage could probably stand to be boosted a little further as a Taranis is only 20 DPS short with one less gun however, I don't think we'll ever see a 50% bonus to damage like it has. Switching the damage bonus to a rate-of-fire bonus would bring up gun DPS by 8% but rate-of-fire bonii are never found on Gallente ships. Increasing the damage bonus to 7.5% per level would give a 12.5% increase in DPS over the current Enyo. I'm going to run the math on it and see if it breaks anything - if not, I'll edit the proposal. Ninevite wrote: Going back and reading the OP...Please answer honestly: Given the current state of the game, do you believe your proposed buffs to Wolfs and Jaguars would make them better than the rest of the assault frigates? In a 1v1 between any assault frigate vs a Wolf/Jaguar, which ship would you normally expect to win? In a word: No. I wouldn't propose changes that would make one or two ships categorically better than the others. Circumstance is a huge factor in combat that can never really be fully accounted for with ship bonii. If you manage to catch a powerful ship outside its effective range and you can keep it there and pepper it for long enough, you should win. Resistances also play a big role and that comes down to how well tanked your target is and what ammo the Minmatar pilot chose to put in - damage from the other races can be more easily predicted. Really it'll be up to whom one chooses to engage, with Minmatar maintaining their current ability to run most times. Running is not winning. Keep in mind that hybrids can now quickly switch between ammo types and with that in mind, I'd be careful about rolling up on a hybrid AF if I was in a Minmatar AF. At an 8km orbit distance, the proposed Enyo using Null will actually exceed the damage a Jaguar does with EMP/Phased Plasma/Fusion and we haven't accounted for the drone(s) yet. The Jaguar can overheat the point and extend the orbit however, the damage dealt will be minimal until switched to Barrage, which takes time, all the while still running from drones and the overheated tackle will eventually fry. I think the Jaguar will be able to decide if it wants to die or leave but this isn't any different from how it is now. An Enyo would be forced to fight if the Jaguar picks it but it's not helpless. There are many other scenarios we could consider and I could spout problems and solutions for each all day. The simple fact is that for most of the AF's, combat leading to a ship death is going to be taking place at or under 10km and if you don't have superior damage, it's going to take a fair amount of piloting skill and/or superior tank to prevail. Our goal should not be to engineer outcomes but to make surprises possible. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Ninevite Shiva Morsus Mihi 2	Posted - 2011.12.01 16:51:00 - [40] - Quote Well, I don't necessarily agree with all of your proposed changes, but I do want to thank you for this thread. You obviously put in a lot of time thinking about these ships and re-balancing them. Thank you for calling attention to how underwhelming AFs are, and trying to make something happen that will better AF pilots.
killorbekilled TBE Dare Bears Finis Terrae 21	Posted - 2011.12.01 17:48:00 - [41] - Quote the role bonus to Assault frigates in the upcoming patch should be 7.5% reduction in signature radius per assault ship level this will make them harder to hit, at the same time not meddling in there original base stats to kick off some sort cry to re balance them on a later patch or update
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 168	Posted - 2011.12.01 17:57:00 - [42] - Quote You must really have it in for the rocket boats .. they can just about achieve their potential damage against webbed AFs as it is, reduce signature and they are screwed Once more for posterity: A uniform bonus WILL NOT work for AFs as it will inevitably result in widening the existing performance gap. The only way that will work is if the bonus is disconnected from the gank/spank paradigm which speed, signature, tracking et al. are not.
killorbekilled TBE Dare Bears Finis Terrae 21	Posted - 2011.12.01 18:20:00 - [43] - Quote Hirana Yoshida wrote: You must really have it in for the rocket boats .. they can just about achieve their potential damage against webbed AFs as it is, reduce signature and they are screwed Once more for posterity: A uniform bonus WILL NOT work for AFs as it will inevitably result in widening the existing performance gap. The only way that will work is if the bonus is disconnected from the gank/spank paradigm which speed, signature, tracking et al. are not. valid point, but the the fact that defender missiles suck and there isn't an effective way of countering missiles any other way like 'td vs turrets' then this wouldn't imbalance the terms of engagement too greatly plus shouldn't missile chuckers be packing a web or target painter to negate this effect
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 168	Posted - 2011.12.01 18:32:00 - [44] - Quote Read it again .. "they can just about achieve their potential damage against webbed AFs as it is". Already accounted for that, what you are suggesting would completely destroy the Hawk/Vengeance and be a huge boon to Winmatar AFs (due to small auto tracking) and Ishkur (due to drones) .. in other words, an reinforcement of the already "good" Afs with nothing really gained by all others. I have tried thinking of a single bonus combat relevant (ie. uniform bonus) ever since CCP's AB boost fiasco and it just doesn't exist. You will have to tweak each AF individually to even out the imbalance that occurs after applying such a bonus .. but then isn't the time better spent creating bonuses tailor made for the individual ships and thus (hopefully) making them more unique?
killorbekilled TBE Dare Bears Finis Terrae 21	Posted - 2011.12.01 19:20:00 - [45] - Quote i like this idea but when i think of it, i end up at electronic attack ships every time
Jerick Ludhowe Filth. 27	Posted - 2011.12.01 20:15:00 - [46] - Quote CobaltSixty wrote: 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 (Proposal Version 2) Swap T2 manufacturers with the Nemesis. Duvolle Labs makes gunboats, Roden Shipyards makes missile boats. Models with this change (Roden Shipyards Nemesis, at least) have been found in the assets folder. Make it happen! Remove launcher slot from the Enyo. Duvolle does not use silly missiles. Add new bonus; 10% to small hybrid turret falloff per level of Gallente Frigate. This bonus is consistent with other Duvolle vessels like the Deimos (see first change). New falloff with all Level V skills and antimatter = 4.68km Increase drone bay by 5m³ and drone bandwidth by 5Mbit/sec. New total of 10 for each, respectively. This counters the removal of the launcher slot from the hull and is more consistent with Gallente/Duvolle design philosophy. I like the idea of a scaled down drone hp and damage bonus however I do believe that with these changes the Ishkur will be FAR FAR FAR better than the Enyo in basically every situation imaginable. I'd rather see the bonus be 5% to scout drone speed and 5% bonus to scout drone hit points per level, the ship already has amazing dps and damage projection for a frigate. The Enyo idea I think is spot on. I like the idea of another drone to Imrpove dps by around 15ish pushing it above the dps a similarly fit Ishkur can dish out. The falloff bonus is nice and will most certainly have a positive impact on turret damage projection. The only additional change I would make to this ship is a small cpu increase in the area of +20. This cpu is needed to take advantage of that 4th low slot.
Sinooko The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 8	Posted - 2011.12.02 03:25:00 - [47] - Quote One of the biggest problems I had with assault ships is that for teh cost of an assault ship I could buy a T1 fitted battlecruiser. Much greater tank, much greater DPS for the same price. Balancing the cost/benefit ratio would do wonders for making an assault frigate useful in fleets.
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 22	Posted - 2011.12.02 07:23:00 - [48] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: I like the idea of a scaled down drone hp and damage bonus however I do believe that with these changes the Ishkur will be FAR FAR FAR better than the Enyo in basically every situation imaginable... ...The Enyo idea I think is spot on. I like the idea of another drone to Imrpove dps by around 15ish pushing it above the dps a similarly fit Ishkur can dish out. The falloff bonus is nice and will most certainly have a positive impact on turret damage projection. The only additional change I would make to this ship is a small cpu increase in the area of +20. Hi Jerick, thank you for commenting! As mentioned in a recent post I've been considering a boost to the Enyo's damage as part of the changes, especially because the proposed Ishkur can do very similar amounts of damage and the Enyo should be at the top of the heap in terms of raw DPS. With that in mind I have since changed the damage bonus from 5% to 7.5% per level on the Enyo as well as the Retribution. Justification is provided in-line after the bonus itself as well as in the edit log below each ship proposal. Sinooko wrote: One of the biggest problems I had with assault ships is that for teh cost of an assault ship I could buy a T1 fitted battlecruiser. Much greater tank, much greater DPS for the same price. Balancing the cost/benefit ratio would do wonders for making an assault frigate useful in fleets. This is a legitimate concern and one I've tried to address however, it's important to remember that T1 will always be more cost-effective than T2. In order to enhance their value I've made them slightly superior off the shelf for newcomers to AFs while still providing clear benefits to finish training in Assault Ships. Each ship gets better in unique ways as you finish the skill. I hope these last two edits are to everyone's liking and if you're unsure or curious about my reasoning, please just ask and I'll do my best to address your questions and/or concerns. We're coming up on a thousand views in this thread and it's becoming obvious from the other AF complaint threads that have sprung up that this is a hot topic for many. If you know anyone who might have an interest in seeing improvements to this class of ship, have them drop by and speak their mind! I would very much like to hear a young, soon-to-be AF pilot's perspective on the proposal - do the ships appear more attractive to fly with the new bonii? Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Marek Lonely Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2011.12.02 12:05:00 - [49] - Quote I didn't run all the numbers but just reading the proposal and reasoning +1 in case CCP decides not to mess with ships too much. On the more radical side of the argument, I've been toying around with an idea for a while now. I never ran any numbers with it so you'll have to excuse the general vagueness, I am however aware of the fact that I suck at balancing and will let better minds than mine tinker with it in case this generates any interest. - Hawk, Vengeance, Ishkur and Jaguar - DPS should be balanced among these, most likely leaving Hawk and Vengeance where they are or SLIGHTLY boosting them and bringing Ishkur's and Jag's DPS down to be in line. 4th bonus would be used to boost their tanks (except for Hawk where it could be used for a slight DPS increase). - Harpy, Retribution, Enyo and Wolf - 4th bonus used to reduce requirements for their respected MEDIUM sized guns Yes, the second part is radical. Here's the rationale: - Utility AFs become dedicated heavy tacklers with increased tank to facilitate the survivability against their primary targets which should be cruiser and destroyer hulls. Interceptors don't lose their superior tackle ability due to superior speed. Tackler AFs become the entry point for interceptors due to lower skill requirements. NOTE: I know the Jaguar is the sticking point here given it's current capabilities but mid slot layout dictates it being the tackler frigate. - Damage AFs become what they were always supposed to be - anti-cruiser and anti-destroyer platforms. By fitting cruiser sized guns their DPS output against given ship classes while still not robbing destroyers of their anti-frigate role due to inherent tracking and sig radius problems of medium turrets. DPS AFs become the entry point for HACs since they require the same guns but with lower skill requirements on other fronts. NOTE: Minmatar problem again due to AC tracking being dangerous enough for frigates. Might be mitigated by allowing only long range variant of the guns (rails/beams/artillery) which also reduces the problem of lack of tanking abilities on DPS AFs. This is of course all very conceptual and might have more holes in it than swiss cheese, I just wanted to throw it out there for discussion.
Ines Tegator Project ELT 30	Posted - 2011.12.02 16:37:00 - [50] - Quote The problem with these discussions - and why there are so many ideas- is that noone can decide what AF's are supposed to do. Here's some of my thoughts from elsewhere: [quote=Ines Tegator I suggest to following (somewhat obvious) role: they assault things. To be more specific, they should be a rapid assault platform that brings quick strike ability and mobility to a small gang. I suggest the following straightforward bonus to define this. Role Bonus: Increases the Turret Signal Resolution/Missile Explosion Radius (as appropriate for hull) and also increases damage. The idea is that the AF will do increased damage vs cruiser sized targets, but it's damage and role vs other frigates remains as unchanged as possible. This idea has some clear advantages: -Give AF's a defined fleet role and makes them desirable in small gangs. -Does not eclipse other frigates from their current role, or overpower AF's in relation to other frigates. -Makes frigate hulls a viable option in roaming gangs, which are currently dominated by BCs/HACs. -Lowers the barrier to entry for new characters to organised PVP, since T2 frigate fittings can be reached much sooner then T2 cruiser fittings. -Increases the value of frigate counters, such as EAF's and the improved destroyers, giving variety to gang composition. -Increases the popularity of Wolf Pack gangs, giving variety to small gang encounters. [/quote] This would give them a role as small fleet DPS, along with cruisers. Compared to cruisers, they would have reduced damage and increased mobility, a niche that's suitable to heavy tackle, hit and run or wolf packs. That's not a HUGE difference from t1 cruisers or destroyers, but distinct enough to be worth flying, especially since it makes frigate hulls a realistic option in roams and lets us frigate pilots get into organised pvp.
Zarnak Wulf Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 119	Posted - 2011.12.03 03:48:00 - [51] - Quote I like the new Enyo. The wolf would need an increase in CPU to be effective. It would easily eat 20 CPU if you gave it to it. I don't know what a correct amount would be.
Major Kim The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 1	Posted - 2011.12.05 00:55:00 - [52] - Quote bump
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 24	Posted - 2011.12.05 02:13:00 - [53] - Quote Marek Lonely wrote: Hawk, Vengeance, Ishkur and Jaguar - DPS should be balanced among these, most likely leaving Hawk and Vengeance where they are or SLIGHTLY boosting them and bringing Ishkur's and Jag's DPS down to be in line. 4th bonus would be used to boost their tanks (except for Hawk where it could be used for a slight DPS increase). - Harpy, Retribution, Enyo and Wolf - 4th bonus used to reduce requirements for their respected MEDIUM sized guns I can't say I agree with separating the Assault Ship lineup into two different "roles". Assault Ships are the precursor to HACs and those aren't separated like say, Recon Ships are separated into Combat and Force Recons. Sure, there's a gunboat for each race and then one that uses a different approach, but the ships they are based on vary. No HAC, whether based on the tier-2 or tier-3, is clearly better than the other within its own race per se - the combination the skills and tactics necessary to fly them effectively make each unique. Furthermore, making categories makes it difficult to decide which one goes where, and invariably will leave someone with a bad taste in their mouth for the ship they once enjoyed. More importantly, if CCP's recent design choices are any indication, medium guns adapted to fit a small vessel would best be suited to a new tier of destroyer. I fully support this direction and thus must petition against introducing it for Assault Ships. Assault Ships are supposed to be the pinnacle of the damage and tank combination at the small ship level, and should not require investment in medium gun skills to use effectively. Yes, tier-1 destroyers can do more damage with small guns but at the expense of having relatively weak tanks, even after their boost. Just as battlecruisers can do more damage than a HAC, they do not have the base resistances and focus on weapon bonusing that HACs do. Ines Tegator wrote: The problem with these discussions - and why there are so many ideas- is that noone can decide what AF's are supposed to do. (...) Role Bonus: Increases the Turret Signal Resolution/Missile Explosion Radius (as appropriate for hull) and also increases damage. The idea is that the AF will do increased damage vs cruiser sized targets, but it's damage and role vs other frigates remains as unchanged as possible. Assault Ships are "supposed to do" whatever you can manage to pull off in one. AFs will likely end up being an ideal anti-destroyer platform however, their uses should not be purposely limited. Trying to shoehorn pilots into "use this ship to kill these ships" scenarios decreases the possibilities for dynamic encounters and is the opposite of what we should be trying enable. The AF's place in a fleet won't be fully realized until the rest of the small ship T2 lineup is fleshed out (hint for what I'm going to tackle next). Please don't be discouraged though, Ines - your idea is a neat workaround for what Marek proposed and basically turns small guns into medium ones without the need for additional training - perhaps this is another approach for bringing in an anti-cruiser tier-2 destroyer? There are some faults such as the tracking which you didn't address - leaving the tracking of small guns while boosting damage would make these in fact deadlier against other frigates, even if the turret signature resolution were increased. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 39	Posted - 2011.12.05 05:52:00 - [54] - Quote CobaltSixty wrote: [quote=Marek Lonely] Please don't be discouraged though, Ines - your idea is a neat workaround for what Marek proposed and basically turns small guns into medium ones without the need for additional training - perhaps this is another approach for bringing in an anti-cruiser tier-2 destroyer? There are some faults such as the tracking which you didn't address - leaving the tracking of small guns while boosting damage would make these in fact deadlier against other frigates, even if the turret signature resolution were increased. Thanks. I fully admit that each hull needs it's own balance tweaks, my ultimate goal is to give AF's a role in small gangs. Currently, you either fly tackle/BC/HAC/logi or go home. It'd be great to give frigate fans a choice for these gangs, which I think would help get more people out into organised pvp. This also indirectly buffs Dessies and EAF's, by giving them a dangerous foe to counter. Also, according to wiki, sig res has a built in tracking reduction against smaller targets. This would mean heavily tackled and shield extended frigates get boned, but I havn't the math skills to really analyze by how much. It would definately be a bad thing if overdone, or done badly. The design goal should be that frigate/frigate encounters are as unchanged as possible, while increase AF's DPS when targeting upship. Someone with far better maths then would be needed to figure out what stats are needed to pull that off.
Marek Lonely Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2011.12.05 14:10:00 - [55] - Quote I will admit that drastic separation between types of AFs is a bit weird, it was pretty much just my attempt at not making all the AFs feel the same. Small guns don't really offer enough diversity even when considering close range vs long range weapons, the distinction is really not that big in most cases (ok, yes, Harpy and rails, but we all know rails still have serious problems). You can always get away with the lack of available med slots with just having a larger amount of ships, what I was attempting is giving tackler AFs something unique over their DPS brethren, and vice versa. The reason I was going for larger guns is I really don't like the concept of "Role nerf" like in the case of destroyers which was just dropped in the latest patch. And, tbh, I was myself pretty much torn about it until CCP pulled it off themselves with t3 BCs. In any case, happy to see the discussion rolling, I really want AFs in general to be a more viable small gang and solo ships, I don't care how it will be achieved in the end, I just want to pull my dusty Hawk out at last and wreak some havoc in it :)
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 42	Posted - 2011.12.05 22:07:00 - [56] - Quote Marek Lonely wrote: In any case, happy to see the discussion rolling, I really want AFs in general to be a more viable small gang and solo ships, I don't care how it will be achieved in the end, I just want to pull my dusty Hawk out at last and wreak some havoc in it :) Completel agreed. My main point is really that the only way to do this is to give them a distinct purpose; suggesting any given bonus is incidental to that and just brainstorming on ways to accomplish this goal.
Migeta Souls of Chromanin Vera Cruz Alliance 0	Posted - 2011.12.05 23:41:00 - [57] - Quote CobaltSixty wrote: Preface: 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. 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. Without further ado, the changes. =============================================== AUTHOR'S NOTE: The scope of this proposal now extends beyond an overhaul of the Retribution and addition of a 4th bonus to assault frigates. Some ships have had varying degress of additional changes proposed, namely the Vengeance, Hawk, Enyo, Wolf and Jaguar. These changes are made to correct balance and consistency issues amongst the Assault Ship and T2 lineups while requiring the least amount of changes. ================================================= Subject to changes / revisions based on continued refinement. ================================================= Amarr - Retribution (Proposal Version 2a) -1 High-slot, to be exchanged for +1 Mid-slot. New slot layout 4 High-slots (4 turrets, 0 launchers), 2 Mid-slots, 5 Low-slots. +10tf to base CPU of Retribution, to a total of 135tf. Mid-slot modules generally require more CPU than capacitor warfare modules and so the draw on the ships computer is only partially negated by the removal of a high-slot. This is still noticably less than the Vengeance's (proposed) base of 170tf, but a good deal more than the Punisher's 115tf. New CPU total with Electronics V = 168.75tf No change to powergrid necessary - the Retribution was already difficult to fit with a full rack of the heaviest lasers and a passive tank, let alone with a capacitor warfare module. Increase bonus; change damage bonus from 5% to 7.5% per level of Assault Ships. Brings the Retribution in line with the Wolf for damage when fully trained. Add new bonus; 7.5% to small energy turret tracking speed per level of Amarr Frigate. This is in line with the Retribution's manufacturer-cousin, the Crusader as well as all the other gunboat-AFs (Enyo, proposed Wolf). The exception to this is the Harpy which eschews a tracking bonus for a second optimal bonus - the traditional Caldari way. 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 only negative effect is the removal of the utility high-slot which is countered by the addition of a new mid-slot. EDIT: The original proposal involved a more complex series of adjustments in order to let the Retribution maintain its utility high-slot and DPS while being short-changed a gun. After some helpful input and comparison of the ship to its larger HAC brethren, it was found that the utility high is incongruous with the Retribution's role and Carthum's design philosophy. Proposal version 2 saw the damage bonus left at 5% - since reinstated to 7.5% requested in original proposal. Amarr - Vengeance (Proposal Version 2) +1 High-slot, no counter-removal of slots. Even with the other changes proposed, the Vengeance will be bringing up the rear of the pack for peak damage and speed amongst Assault Ships. There needs to be a tradeoff for this, and the ship's bonus to capacitor recharge suggests effectiveness in capacitor warfare. Also, it would be inappropriate for the Amarr to not have a 5 high-slot Assault Frigate when all the other races do. Yes, it would be the only AF with 12 slots total. No, this isn't game-breaking. 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. Consistent with other Khanid designs. Add new bonus; 5% to missile launcher rate-of-fire per level of Assault Ships. Consistent with other Khanid designs. +10tf to base CPU of Vengeance, to a total of 170tf. With all Level V skills and Tech-2 equipment, one should be able to fit an afterburner, 4 rocket launchers, a neutralizer, tackle mods, a ballistic control and a good passive tank. It should NOT be possible to do the same with standard missile launchers. New CPU total with Electronics V = 212.5tf. EDIT: Based on revisions to Retribution proposal, Vengeance gains a utility high-slot to suit its role as the utility-minded one of the pair. The first version of the proposal did not include this change and also called for an increase to base powergrid instead of CPU which is no longer appropriate. See next post for remaining ships... u forgot something ??? what about faction frigs??? if u do this to asults faction ships will just become rokie ships.... and if u change the asult ships hmm making them that more powerfull u will have to change the whole balance with cruisers and bcs... think again on all veiv not just on the asults faction frigs shoud be able to kill the t2 frigs...
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 24	Posted - 2011.12.06 05:11:00 - [58] - Quote Migeta wrote: u forgot something ??? what about faction frigs??? if u do this to asults faction ships will just become rokie ships.... and if u change the asult ships hmm making them that more powerfull u will have to change the whole balance with cruisers and bcs... think again on all veiv not just on the asults faction frigs shoud be able to kill the t2 frigs... I didn't forget this at all, Migeta. Pirate faction ships have 3 bonii, one of which is usually numerically greater per level than those found on T1 or even T2 ships. T2 ships have 4 bonii (or 3 and a role bonus); the only exceptions thus far are the Assault Ships and the whole point of this thread is to rectify this issue while taking the time to address some imbalances that won't be corrected simply by adding a bonus. It also is not a given rule that faction should be superior to T2. The true purpose of faction ships is to be of higher performance than T1 while being more accessible (having lower skill requirements) than T2. Prices for faction ships are fully set by the player market and in terms of material cost, they are less expensive than T2. Just because the people who sell you faction ships charge quite a bit doesn't mean they should be better. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Migeta Souls of Chromanin Vera Cruz Alliance 1	Posted - 2011.12.06 09:03:00 - [59] - Quote CobaltSixty wrote: Migeta wrote: u forgot something ??? what about faction frigs??? if u do this to asults faction ships will just become rokie ships.... and if u change the asult ships hmm making them that more powerfull u will have to change the whole balance with cruisers and bcs... think again on all veiv not just on the asults faction frigs shoud be able to kill the t2 frigs... I didn't forget this at all, Migeta. Pirate faction ships have 3 bonii, one of which is usually numerically greater per level than those found on T1 or even T2 ships. T2 ships have 4 bonii (or 3 and a role bonus); the only exceptions thus far are the Assault Ships and the whole point of this thread is to rectify this issue while taking the time to address some imbalances that won't be corrected simply by adding a bonus. It also is not a given rule that faction should be superior to T2. The true purpose of faction ships is to be of higher performance than T1 while being more accessible (having lower skill requirements) than T2. Prices for faction ships are fully set by the player market and in terms of material cost, they are less expensive than T2. Just because the people who sell you faction ships charge quite a bit doesn't mean they should be better. i disagree with u about faction in all games special faction unique rare.... items/ships are beter than comon t2 ship u can make any day u want... faction bpo u will need to find it... they shoud be superior to t2 so far they are... ccp alredy ruined them becuse of the t3 ships if this nerfing will continue in eve there are like 200 difrent ships u can fly... becuse of all the nerfing and changing like 10 ships are playeble.... t3 ships puted out factio crusers a bit murader and comand ships totaly... years ago u seen many of this ships ? now u barly know they exsist? i fly sb and af ... and i am amar race , and the ships are good for the role, to good vs noobs.... so if they change them like people want there will be solo gangs in this afs totaly owning outhers.... dont forget its a space game and size does mather...
sten mattson The Spawning Pool Team Liquid 11	Posted - 2011.12.06 19:47:00 - [60] - Quote bump , cuz i feel like it! :p also i agree on everything on the current state of the proposal (2nd mid slot for the retri FTW!!)

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.