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
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!!)
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 27	Posted - 2011.12.08 06:50:00 - [61] - Quote sten mattson wrote: 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!!) Thank you for the... BUMP. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
sten mattson The Spawning Pool Team Liquid 11	Posted - 2011.12.09 13:34:00 - [62] - Quote pleasure's all mine :D no dev response yet? :'(
Leskit The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 3	Posted - 2011.12.09 15:23:00 - [63] - Quote Bump for good discussion! I'll put up a 'real' reply later today once i'm home. I hope CCP looks into this thread. not only are the ideas in here quite good, but they're pretty well thought out and there is a lot of good, honest, respectful conversation happening. I'd love to have my old retribution actually be usefull...first t2 ship I ever got. still have it.
Meditril Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact 20	Posted - 2011.12.09 15:41:00 - [64] - Quote I think assault ships should just get a web invulnerability (15% per assault ship skill level) as 4th bonus. This will make them unique but not overpowered and it will significantly improve their use against larger targets and blobs.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 181	Posted - 2011.12.09 17:32:00 - [65] - Quote Meditril wrote: I think assault ships should just get a web invulnerability (15% per assault ship skill level) as 4th bonus. This will make them unique but not overpowered and it will significantly improve their use against larger targets and blobs. . Do you seriously consider 1.5+k/s afterburning AFs for balanced? That would be the case for the Winmatar boats more or less ... you are essentially suggesting the exact same thing that CCP did with their idiot AB boost idea. Pump the speed directly through propulsion or by removing any hope of slowing them down .. makes no difference, they will be OP as hell against large AND small targets alike with staggering powergaps within the class itself (ie. WInmatar + Ishkur would be only ones flown). Once more, since there are some tardy folks who want to contribute: It is not possible to add a uniform combat relevant bonus to the class without breaking it.
Zircon Dasher Zirconia Trade Group 33	Posted - 2011.12.09 17:33:00 - [66] - Quote Balance ships not bonuses. The "but this other thing has more bonuses" whine or "but the t1 version has better stat X" whine are just that; whines. If players want more AF's being used then players need to come to a concensus about what the hell they are supposed to be used for. IF people want heavy tackle for gangs, then how do you make AFs that are not rediculous when they fight other frigate (and dessy) boats? If people want AF's to be top predators in frigate (and dessy) combat, then players must arrive at some consensus of what is precluding thier use already. The latter option will only see marginal increases in use, however, due to the current meta game. Either way, going about things in any other fashion is about as intelligent as throwing darts to assign boosts. Personally, I think the best thing CCP could do to help AF (and EAF + dessies) would be to find ways increase the need for subCruiser gangs or at least sub t2Cruiser/BC gangs.
Zircon Dasher Zirconia Trade Group 33	Posted - 2011.12.09 17:35:00 - [67] - Quote Hirana Yoshida wrote: makes no difference, they will be OP as hell against large AND small targets alike with staggering powergaps within the class itself This.
Leskit The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 3	Posted - 2011.12.09 23:00:00 - [68] - Quote First off, I think all of the changes fall between satisfactory and great. I hope we can get a higher up CCP dev to look into this post...a lot of the work would have been done for them and they just have to make sure it doesn't uber buff these things I think Sigras has the right idea: 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 . . . 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. Part of the problem is that inty's do descent damage with their speed. I think a base speed boost for all the ships would be helpfull. being frigates, speed is their greatest defence. Therefore: Amarr, Gallente, and harpy: 10% bonus to base speed. Hawk and matari af's: 5% or 7.5% to base speed. play with the numbers a little, I know it seems odd to not do a flat change across all of them. The goal with that is to avoid making already popular winmatar even better. One thing to keep in mind is that one of the most uniform rules in eve is that the shorter the range of the weapon (base stats), the more damage it does. hams vs hm's, arties vs ac's. 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. [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.. This. their role has been thought of as heavy tackle, anti frigate support, or even anti-drones. Here is my comparison: hac gangs are SO popular because they can move faster than a battleships's guns can track and they have enough tank and gank to burn through cruisers before working onto the bs's. AF's should have the same basic role; be a threat that a cruiser simply can't handle without something designed to hit frigs (uber tracking, smaller guns, dual webs, etc). hence the slight speed increase. I see the biggest problem for AF's is they have to stay within the 10km range of webs which is the largest reason they die (but light drone swarms is close too). If you look at their cruiser counterparts, they can roughly be devided into 2 groups: range bonuses (lighter tank, less utility slots) and close range with tougher tank, more utility slots. I know you don't like the idea of splitting them into roles, but given the web danger to af's it might be worth looking into. This also opens up the can of worms called faction frigates and EAF's but that's for another day.
Leskit The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 3	Posted - 2011.12.09 23:00:00 - [69] - Quote double post...sorry... Anyway, if they do get a small speed boost what we'll end up seeing is moure double web/blood/rapiers in cruiser gangs, which would add a little more diversity as well as using up mid slots on cruiser gangs for defence agaisnt af's instead of i-win-at-everything fits.
tankus2 Endless Destruction Imperial Ascension 17	Posted - 2011.12.10 02:52:00 - [70] - Quote Good to see that this thread is still alive, though bad that a dev has yet to show any form of affection. Thinking from the Caldari side of things (as always), the new Hawk bonus line-up is superior to the first proposal. Baby Cerb indeed ^_^ Where the science gets done
Onyx47 U-208 Rote Kapelle 7	Posted - 2011.12.11 23:10:00 - [71] - Quote Cynoing this thing from 4th page back to top. Nothing to add, +1 In PvP there are no winners, only losers. The trick is to be less of a loser than the guy you're shooting at.
Forest Baltar Orion's Fist RED.Legion 1	Posted - 2011.12.12 00:36:00 - [72] - Quote Bumping for the hoarde.
tankus2 Endless Destruction Imperial Ascension 18	Posted - 2011.12.13 02:16:00 - [73] - Quote no one else has anything to add? are we all in agreeance that this should be done ASAP? This would be certainly a LOT easier to pull off than, say, some pi thread Where the science gets done
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 28	Posted - 2011.12.14 19:41:00 - [74] - Quote Bump for visibility. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Residium Fall Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2011.12.15 01:34:00 - [75] - Quote Hirana Yoshida wrote: My take: Damage AFs = More damage and ganglink fitting bonus. Utility AFs = better cap plus RR range and efficiency bonus Oh for the love of God yes, this really should have got more love. The problem with the current very lovely proposal in the first post remains that they still (generally) lack a role beyond being slightly shinier T1 Frigates. Giving them something extra targeted towards being a gang ship rather than generic 1v1 tank/gank would push them into the role they were seemingly intended for, devastatingly useful in small, well coordinated gangs but counterable by something a little more exotic, significantly bigger or the blob. The quoted suggestion would achieve this beautifully with the added bonus of not absurdly overpowering them when used by the lovely people who sit in Hek, drop their cans and beg for fights :) shrugs Just my 2 cents. Kudos to the OP, nice to see discussion move beyond whining about the 4th bonus :)
Zarnak Wulf Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 142	Posted - 2011.12.15 22:23:00 - [76] - Quote Here is a very radical idea - why not kill off half the AF? Give each race one to fly. We could then focus on roles and bonuses alot easier. As it stands right now AF are very confused. They have lots of firepower and the ability to tank. But they die horribly in scramble range because of neuts, drones, and webs. Imagine the Jaguar with the following bonuses: damage, tracking, damage and falloff. It would have a decent tank and be able to project decent firepower. It could deal with drones somewhat better. It would still be slower then other frigate types. We can also look at role bonuses easier as you don't have to balance the class against itself so much.
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 30	Posted - 2011.12.16 01:22:00 - [77] - Quote Zarnak Wulf wrote: Imagine the Jaguar with the following bonuses: damage, tracking, damage and falloff. It would have a decent tank and be able to project decent firepower. It could deal with drones somewhat better. It would still be slower then other frigate types. We can also look at role bonuses easier as you don't have to balance the class against itself so much. Have you checked the most recent version (last updated Dec. 2nd) of the Jaguar proposal? It's basically exactly the same bonus set as you've described except one of the damages is a rate-of-fire instead. This would further enhance the ability to deal with drones while bringing some consistency to the bonii applied to Thukker Mix vessels. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
M1AU Farstriders New Eden Industrie Alliance 34	Posted - 2011.12.23 01:34:00 - [78] - Quote There are some good and easy to implement proposals in the Ops post, keep it up.
tankus2 Endless Destruction Imperial Ascension 21	Posted - 2011.12.23 01:47:00 - [79] - Quote this thread needs more likes. many, many more Where the science gets done
Forest Baltar Orion's Fist RED.Legion 1	Posted - 2011.12.23 02:04:00 - [80] - Quote tankus2 wrote: this thread needs more likes. many, many more You can say that again! This thread is something that needs to be implemented... Forest
tankus2 Endless Destruction Imperial Ascension 21	Posted - 2011.12.24 04:57:00 - [81] - Quote what is this thread doing without both a dev actually giving their piece (even a simple 'nein' would be nice, if the case) AND not on the first page? back ye go Where the science gets done
Alara IonStorm 689	Posted - 2011.12.24 05:32:00 - [82] - Quote https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=49685&find=unread CCP luvs you all. Never Forget It!
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 200	Posted - 2011.12.24 14:10:00 - [83] - Quote Hahahaha. Those preliminary changes would make them so OP it isnt even funny. T1 fit AFs would dwarf officer fit pirate frigs for Goddess sake .. extra slots AND more bonuses .... No wonder CCP has had issues sorting them if they start at the utmost extreme and then whittle away on them .. waste of time. PS: Drool at prospect of Retribution with not only the original god-range but with god-tracking and 2nd mid .. trolololol.
tankus2 Endless Destruction Imperial Ascension 22	Posted - 2011.12.25 04:05:00 - [84] - Quote I'm guessing CCP doesn't do as much research in their own game than just pukes up ideas, implements them, then fixes them as needed. Where the science gets done
Mfume Apocal Origin. Black Legion. 168	Posted - 2011.12.25 08:21:00 - [85] - Quote tankus2 wrote: I'm guessing CCP doesn't do as much research in their own game than just pukes up ideas, implements them, then fixes them as needed. They give them OP stats to begin testing and nerf from there (remember the 90% web Talos?). It's not a terrible way of doing things.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 200	Posted - 2011.12.25 09:53:00 - [86] - Quote Mfume Apocal wrote: They give them OP stats to begin testing and nerf from there (remember the 90% web Talos?). It's not a terrible way of doing things. For sure, it is a very reasonable way to sort out new ships prior to introducing them, but to balance existing ships within a very crowded weight-class and you are better off going at it in reverse, that is tweak upwards rather than downwards. Not a whole lot of room to maneuvre in the light class before you end up having to changing everything.
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 36	Posted - 2011.12.26 03:04:00 - [87] - Quote Hirana Yoshida wrote: For sure, it is a very reasonable way to sort out new ships prior to introducing them, but to balance existing ships within a very crowded weight-class and you are better off going at it in reverse, that is tweak upwards rather than downwards. Not a whole lot of room to maneuvre in the light class before you end up having to changing everything. I have to agree with Hirana here - for pre-existing ships, fine adjustments of the ships in relation to the rest of the class is the way to go. After that is complete, the necessity and specifics of a flat role bonus for the class can be evaluated separately as it will significantly alter how they compare to other classes. Currently, Assault Ships have 10 or 11 slots. My proposal for the lineup saw the first of the class with 12 slots - the Vengeance - and I agree that it may very well be necessary to bring up the bottom end (Ishkur with 10) to compensate but not every ship needs a new slot to stay competitive with these changes. I don't want to comment any further on the Chaos build changes as they're far from final. I will say that I am encouraged by the direction the devs seem to be going with this and was very humbled to see a lot of the bonus proposals make it into preliminary testing. The extent to which they took it has given me a lot to think about, so keep your eyes peeled for further revisions this week. Thanks to everyone who has pitched in thus far with commentary and keeping this thread visible. Please keep it up! Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Xindi Kraid The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 5	Posted - 2011.12.28 13:22:00 - [88] - Quote I haven't flown every single frigate extensively (Sadly, there are some situations where you HAVE to take a bigger ship, else I would have never trained battleships), but I do know my way around small craft. I think these proposals are much better than what CCP wants to do. The biggest thing is that they seem to be buffing all the ships evenly, when some need more help than others. I am also unsure about the MWD bonus. I'm sure it will help survivability, but it just doesn't seem right. When I hear the descriptor 'assault' I think of something that can take a few solid hits that is capable of maiming things. As frigates, they should still be speedy, but I'd rather see a bonus that lets them punch a class up.
Ines Tegator Towels R Us 80	Posted - 2011.12.28 21:02:00 - [89] - Quote The MWD bonus on Chaos is exactly what AF's need. However, it's also exactly what every frigate in the game needs. It seems to me to be a waste of a role bonus, and should be rolled into the base stats of the 1mn module. I'd rather see this, and then have each AF hull balanced with a unique 4th bonus in the way that HACs are. The other changes on chaos don't do much to fix the disparity between the hulls (retribution excepted). Minmatar and Ishkur are still ahead in every area and everyone else is playing catch up. But at least it's going the right direction.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 206	Posted - 2011.12.28 22:00:00 - [90] - Quote Ines Tegator wrote: The MWD bonus on Chaos is exactly what AF's need. However, it's also exactly what every frigate in the game needs. It seems to me to be a waste of a role bonus, and should be rolled into the base stats of the 1mn module... Oy, that brain-fart is mine you hear, MINE!. Otherwise yea, disparity within the class remains .. still more concerned about all the other lights (and most cruisers) that will be completely overshadowed by cruiser-power AFs though.
CobaltSixty The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 36	Posted - 2011.12.28 22:54:00 - [91] - Quote I would agree with 1MN microwarpdrives getting their sig bloom toned down like Hirana's post, but not having the same applied as a bonus to all ships. If the module change happened, the only necessary fix is to tone down the bonus Interceptors get so they more or less stay where they are now but the rest of 1MN-using hulls come down a bit. What about, as a role bonus for Assault Ships: -80% to powergrid requirements of 10MN afterburners. I know it sounds silly at first but consider it for a moment. This would allow AFs to fit 10MN afterburners (only) for the cpu requirements of a 1MN MWD, yet with identical powergrid as a 1MN AB. Capacitor usage should be left unchanged so the module's demand is felt. The mass addition from the 10MN module means they're not very agile and would feel sluggish and cruiser-like with it activated. The module would mainly be used for depositing oneself into an orbit against a larger target and egressing from a threat. This gives the Assault Ship a unique approach to the tackle-above-itself role in boosted afterburner speed if you're willing to accept the drawbacks, such as conceding a significant edge in agility to T1 frigates and Interceptors. 1MN modules would still be preferred for hunting other frigates but are more dangerous against larger targets. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront 207	Posted - 2011.12.29 07:15:00 - [92] - Quote Except it would widen the gap between good/bad within the class in the same way the AB boost did, ships with enough range/tracking or agility/speed could care less about extra mass for the most part (ref: 100Mn Tengu). You also have to contend with the problem of having frigs running around at MWD+ speeds with no way other than the now weaker webs to slow them down .. scrams represent a pretty hefty balancing measure when it comes to MWD use. Basically a repeat of all the "evil" from the AB boost attempt, only with oversizing as the tool that gives them the insane speed with no sig bloom rather than a bonus. For a scheme like that to work "as intended" you'd need to increase the mass added by the drives substantially which negatively impacts their legitimate users (cruisers/BCs) and that is a bit hamfisted I think you agree. It is just insanely hard to come up with a bonus that is combat oriented without slamming ones head into the familiar walls of intra-/extra-class balance.
Major Kim The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est 4	Posted - 2011.12.30 14:32:00 - [93] - Quote I think Cobalt has the right idea, Focus on ship bonni not role bonni. Not all of the ships have these role bonuses, (the force recon for instance only has the role bonus to cyno`s). Even though the chaos info is pre-sisi in house testing, it scares me to think they would give them a reduction to sig bloom, and i sincerely hope that it doesn`t go live. BTW, the reduction they propose only reduces the sig bloom by 100m on these frigates.
Mars Theran EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance 5	Posted - 2011.12.31 03:20:00 - [94] - Quote This stuff just makes my head spin, and I tend to feel a certain empathy for CCP Tallest everytime I see one of these threads. I think the main reason for this, is that I see the tiers and tech levels as being limited by an inability to create a true role for each ship class. Calling it an Assault frigate doesn't really make it so, and people just tend to fit willy nilly until they find something that works. Often, the most effective fit is something that was never intended in design. Adding bonuses and slots just makes matters worse, as the ships become exponentially more prone to breakage with every modification, and you may inadvertantly wreck a favorite wtflol fit in the process, or worse: make it better.
tankus2 Endless Destruction Imperial Ascension 26	Posted - 2012.01.09 02:53:00 - [95] - Quote Despite the fact that most people see frigates and only see a warp scram and/or web (or torpedos), Assault Frigates are meant to break out of this mold with firepower that would frighten most cruisers and, with a few numbers, scare battlecruisers. Drones? they'll get taken care of too. Random 300% damage? fine, be my guest. These are supposed to be frigates that put 'combat' in 'combat frigate'. Changing them in the manner that Cobalt has conveniently listed out in two replies highlights this role, their intended role. Where the science gets done

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.