EVE Search - I hate myself: A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Ships and Modules

I hate myself: A discussion on EVE, Combat, Gangs, and Balance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Marko Riva Adamant Inc.	Posted - 2010.04.19 23:32:00 - [31] Edited by: Marko Riva on 19/04/2010 23:33:08 Not going to quote quotes and then quote some more :P You somewhere/somehow brought in a cruiser vs BC comparison not me, so you can't stick it to me that I want BC's nerfed to cruiser lvl. In fact many cruisers do well, Vexor, Thorax, Rupture, Arbitrator and Caracal (to a degree) all do fine.... outside 0.0 blobfests. They're fast, nimble and either have the range and speed to stay out of trouble or feature (if you're smart) a nice flock of ECM drones. BC's do not do that, they can be agile in some cases but they lack the speed, agility and thus the range option to stay alive while taking on slower/more targets. Again, this ofcourse doesn't happen much in blobs and stuff like that but trust me, cruisers are fine, they are effectively the "nanoships" we have now. If anything short range HAC's need a good looking after because they ARE truly dwarfed by tier 2 BC's while they really shouldn't although I have no idea how to solve that problem without opening a whole new can of worms. As fleet BS you kinda, amazingly, forgo the RRBS and short range fits where Caldari is no use whatsoever. in fleets you want dps, range and a good tank (that's supported by RR) ... guess what Amarr is. Kinda amazed that you go "but Caldari have a good sniper so HA!" when we're talking about fleet BS in general. The silly optimal range of pulses, especially when pared with Scorch is an issue, it's so completely out of whack with the rest it's not even funny. As I stated drop pulse range by a decent margin and drop their dps a bit so they have GOOD range and GOOD dps, but less dps than a short range blasterboat. On the tracking part, while there is certainly merit in swapping higher tracking for lower sig and thus lowering incoming dps it's just not very "gallente". Gallente should be all about applied dps at short range, for which you need tracking. Originally by: Goumindong Amarr should not have help in the solo/small gang department. Their versatility should be constrained not increased. So anyone who was "dumb" enough to fly Amarr and doesn't fly in 0.0 blobs should just FOAD? Again, there is more to EVE than 0.0 blob warfare and "balancing" around 0.0 blobs is not the way to go because that advocates blobs more (unless you start to nerf ships based on their 0.0 performance which is also good). Your "cruisers have no role" truly shows this point. Nerf Amarr pulse, boost Gallente short range, leave Minnie as is (possibly lower falloff gains from TE's), caldari will benefit from hybrid changes and lower shield xfer fitting making shield RR more viable. Change some specific ships and shiptypes but keep it simple and certainly don't overhaul "everything", there's no need for that at all. ----------- I think, therefore I'm single. Want to learn combat/PVP? Alliance creation service
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux	Posted - 2010.04.19 23:35:00 - [32] Originally by: Marko Riva Nerf Amarr pulse, boost Gallente short range, leave Minnie as is (possibly lower falloff gains from TE's), caldari will benefit from hybrid changes and lower shield xfer fitting making shield RR more viable. Change some specific ships and shiptypes but keep it simple and certainly don't overhaul "everything", there's no need for that at all. I underlined the part that is absolutely *****ed. If you boost Gallente, you no longer need to nerf Pulse. When pulse was standing out head and shoulders above everything else, I strenuously argued for a pulse nerf. However, CCP decided that the right answer was to bring projectiles up to pulse. Therefore the only right answer is to boost hybrids. Nerfing pulse while simultaneously boosting blasters does nothing more than usher in a new FOTM. Mind you that I've had Gallente BS 5 for freaking ever* - so its not like this wouldn't suit me pretty well. But no, if you care at all about game balance, you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
Marko Riva Adamant Inc.	Posted - 2010.04.19 23:47:00 - [33] The "boost gallente" I mentioned, if you read the earlier parts, consists of upping the tracking of blasters a bit, upping rails dps a bit and lowering fitting on hybrids a tad. And altering blasterboat agility so they accelerate better. That's hardly a massive boost but more of a "there's your niche, now go have fun" change. ----------- I think, therefore I'm single. Want to learn combat/PVP? Alliance creation service
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux	Posted - 2010.04.20 00:27:00 - [34] Originally by: Marko Riva The "boost gallente" I mentioned, if you read the earlier parts, consists of upping the tracking of blasters a bit, upping rails dps a bit and lowering fitting on hybrids a tad. And altering blasterboat agility so they accelerate better. Yes, and as a matter of fact, I responded it to it then too. Maybe if you read the earlier parts.... ? Quote: That's hardly a massive boost but more of a "there's your niche, now go have fun" change. See, but that's not at all what you're suggesting. You're suggesting ***ing over a race that is doing fine* in its niche, while simultaneously boosting another race to be marginally more useful than they are now. I guess maybe the real outcome would be a massive Minmatar FOTM. Can't complain there - Liang will be finishing up Large Projectiles 5 in 11 days and the spec skills a what a week or two later? Which is to say not useful at all, since $utility = 0 and therefore $utility * 1.05 == 0. Quote: Besides, a change in FOTM (if it would come to that) at times is a GOOD thing for an MMO. Things don't NEED to be equal, the amount of different situations which prefer a certain style/race need to be equal, that's something entirely different. TBH I would never fly Amarr again if your nerf came through. There would literally be nothing good about them. Quite frankly, statements like that reveal that Goum has a much better handle on game balance than you do - and I expressed a lot of opinions about this before it was ever published. Quote: Rock, paper, scissors is a MUST. Yes, but you just made Rock, Paper, and **. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum *** Extraordinaire
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.04.20 01:09:00 - [35] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/04/2010 01:16:23 I nearly fell for all the trolling. At least Guom has more or less a geniuine interest in pushing a reasonably balanced idea of how he thinks EVE should develop (and I disagree bar the few sensible ideas here and there), unlike some people pushing to get non-issues fixed (blasters can't track, or EHP fits have too much EHP), or people asking for a direct "boost me" change like Merin asking for his falcon alt to not appear in local anymore regarldess of what else it breaks. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Madner Kami Gallente Durendal Ascending Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub	Posted - 2010.04.20 01:17:00 - [36] Edited by: Madner Kami on 20/04/2010 01:17:33 /me agrees completly with Liang /me is unsure on who's idea-package is actually worse, Goumindong's or Markos /me hopes no Dev ever gets drunk and drugged enough to actually implement any of these packages
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.04.20 01:43:00 - [37] Originally by: Cpt Branko I nearly fell for all the trolling. What can i say, I am a sucker. Originally by: Marko Riva You somewhere/somehow brought in a cruiser vs BC comparison not me, so you can't stick it to me that I want BC's nerfed to cruiser lvl. In fact many cruisers do well, Vexor, Thorax, Rupture, Arbitrator and Caracal (to a degree) all do fine.... outside 0.0 blobfests. They're fast, nimble and either have the range and speed to stay out of trouble or feature (if you're smart) a nice flock of ECM drones. See, that is the thing. Stick a couple of agility mods and a sensor booster on the battlecruisers and they do those jobs better(Even the arbitrator). Saying "but they're ok" belies the fact that they are only good as ships that people are willing to engage, and not useful in their own right. A brtuix with 2 nanos and a sensor booster is faster than an untanked, unrigged thorax, more agile, and locks faster(with more EHP than a tanked Rax). The Thorax simply cannot compete. Except that people will say "oh a thorax, i will engage that" rather than "oh a brutix i won't engage that". The Rupture has similar problems the the Cane and Clone, the Moa with the Brutix, and the Caracal with the Drake. Quote: If anything short range HAC's need a good looking after because they ARE truly dwarfed by tier 2 BC's while they really shouldn't although I have no idea how to solve that problem without opening a whole new can of worms. Wait, the faster, more dps, heavier tanked HACs are outshined by BC's but cruisers aren't? Man what? Quote: As fleet BS you kinda, amazingly, forgo the RRBS and short range fits where Caldari is no use whatsoever. in fleets you want dps, range and a good tank (that's supported by RR) ... guess what Amarr is. Kinda amazed that you go "but Caldari have a good sniper so HA!" when we're talking about fleet BS in general. Except that you don't bring "one ship and fit" to any battleship gang and not all battleship gangs are RR.(current fleet lag situations not withstanding) The best RR bs is probably the Dominix, (Geddon is good, won't deny it, but the Domi is pretty fantastic) Quote: The silly optimal range of pulses, especially when pared with Scorch is an issue, it's so completely out of whack with the rest it's not even funny. As I stated drop pulse range by a decent margin and drop their dps a bit so they have GOOD range and GOOD dps, but less dps than a short range blasterboat. They do have less DPS than short range blaster boats. Both pre and post resistances. Quote: So anyone who was "dumb" enough to fly Amarr and doesn't fly in 0.0 blobs should just FOAD? Again, there is more to EVE than 0.0 blob warfare and "balancing" around 0.0 blobs is not the way to go because that advocates blobs more (unless you start to nerf ships based on their 0.0 performance which is also good). Your "cruisers have no role" truly shows this point. No, there are options for Amarr in solo/small gangs. They're just should not be as good as the options for Gallente/Minmatar. Its these "every race has to have an equal strength X" arguments that have given us overpowered stuff. I fail to see how the proposed changes revolve around "0.0 blobs" especially when many ships are given explicit options that advantage them in solo/small gangs.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.04.20 01:55:00 - [38] Originally by: Goumindong See, that is the thing. Stick a couple of agility mods and a sensor booster on the battlecruisers and they do those jobs better(Even the arbitrator). Saying "but they're ok" belies the fact that they are only good as ships that people are willing to engage, and not useful in their own right. It is more enticing to engage cruisers. Which is sort of a important point, since a lot of combat in EVE is to some extent consensual. They're noticeably nimbler/faster/etc; while you could in theory replicate this in a BC you'd also get a ship which scares off the targets it can kill and cannot kill the targets it doesn't scare away right off the bat. Any potential boost to cruisers should imo boost their mobility. But really the problem of most cruisers (and a huge amount of worthless T1 frigates) is the useless tier system. AFs are fine as they are when we discuss the non-broken ones (Jaguar) and only need a minor 4th bonus. A lot of the ships in the class are broken (lolHawk for instance). On the whole they're grossly overpriced for what is still a frigate hull. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux	Posted - 2010.04.20 02:01:00 - [39] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 20/04/2010 02:01:48 Originally by: Cpt Branko Any potential boost to cruisers should imo boost their mobility. But really the problem of most cruisers (and a huge amount of worthless T1 frigates) is the useless tier system. Yeah - I buy this. It also does away with the annoying role bonuses by moving the bonus back into the hull. Quote: AFs are fine as they are when we discuss the non-broken ones (Jaguar) and only need a minor 4th bonus. A lot of the ships in the class are broken (lolHawk for instance). On the whole they're grossly overpriced for what is still a frigate hull. It's true. I do like the idea of the mini-commandships though. A lot. -Liang Ed: Note that I'd be ok if the T1 cruisers all got a role bonus that helped emphasize their roles... but I'd worry a lot about them overshadowing faction cruisers at that point - which would necessitate another round of boosts. -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.04.20 03:14:00 - [40] Originally by: Cpt Branko It is more enticing to engage cruisers. Which is sort of a important point, since a lot of combat in EVE is to some extent consensual. They're noticeably nimbler/faster/etc; while you could in theory replicate this in a BC you'd also get a ship which scares off the targets it can kill and cannot kill the targets it doesn't scare away right off the bat. See the thing is, i do not think its OK that cruisers only have that advantage where you're less likely to scare off targets. Such they were modified in ways, that while still explicitly worse in the short range compared to BC's just as they are today, they still have valuable contributions outside of that. There is nothing that will keep anyone from fitting a Rupture as they do now with the change I proposed. There is nothing that stops people from kiting in a Stabber (you just do more damage and have more shield HP). There is nothing that stops people from ganking a thorax and ramming it into their target of choice. There is simply additional utility beyond that(OK, well not really the thorax, but it does what it does well). And that is before you get into all the other changes regarding cruisers. Quote: Any potential boost to cruisers should imo boost their mobility. But really the problem of most cruisers (and a huge amount of worthless T1 frigates) is the useless tier system. Easier said than done. Ships are so fast these days it can be hard to catch non-agility modified cruisers without sensor boosters already. An agility/speed boost, unless we take EVE further into twitch combat with regards to locking means that its even harder to balance that aspect of the game Quote: AFs are fine as they are when we discuss the non-broken ones (Jaguar) and only need a minor 4th bonus. A lot of the ships in the class are broken (lolHawk for instance). On the whole they're grossly overpriced for what is still a frigate hull. I don't really buy that either, unless "something to use for minor FW plexes since you cant fly crusiers" is a legitimate role. They don't actively kill other frigates well, they don't actively kill battleships well, they don't actively kill cruisers well, they don't actively kill anything all that well except people who aren't good at the game... and if you boost them to do those things you're going to be taking those things away from some other frigate that is already doing it I would rather give the "something to use for minor FW plexes" role to other frigates and take the AFs into something more specific. But part of that is just the fact that there are so many frigates already (5 tech 1 combat hulls, 6 tech 2 combat hulls!) and its hard to justify adding new things into the game when there is already a host of options sitting unused due to bad design.

Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.04.20 05:33:00 - [41] Originally by: Goumindong I don't really buy that either, unless "something to use for minor FW plexes since you cant fly crusiers" is a legitimate role. They don't actively kill other frigates well, they don't actively kill battleships well, they don't actively kill cruisers well, they don't actively kill anything all that well except people who aren't good at the game... and if you boost them to do those things you're going to be taking those things away from some other frigate that is already doing it This is probably the best way I've heard the AF problem put. It's not an easy fix. If you gave a tracking bonus to the wolf or jaguar the claw would probably be obsoleted for example. It would be the equivalent of three damage bonuses AND a projection bonus for each ship's weapon system. There are ways to solve it w/o having a Jaguar smartbombing ship of doom. Frigate t2 Roles: EAS - specialty Stealth bomber - specialty covertops - specialty Interceptors - one long range distance tackler and one dogfighter. AF - slow meatier tackler ships. I see them as having a different style then an interceptor while having the same role. That isn't to say they accomplish their role right now!
Ophelia Ursus	Posted - 2010.04.20 06:32:00 - [42] Originally by: Zarnak Wulf Originally by: Goumindong I don't really buy that either, unless "something to use for minor FW plexes since you cant fly crusiers" is a legitimate role. They don't actively kill other frigates well, they don't actively kill battleships well, they don't actively kill cruisers well, they don't actively kill anything all that well except people who aren't good at the game... and if you boost them to do those things you're going to be taking those things away from some other frigate that is already doing it This is probably the best way I've heard the AF problem put. It's not an easy fix. If you gave a tracking bonus to the wolf or jaguar the claw would probably be obsoleted for example. It would be the equivalent of three damage bonuses AND a projection bonus for each ship's weapon system. Bull. The claw is waaaay faster than the Jag, has a much lower sig, and has better neut resistance (higher base cap + bonused tackle activation). It's better at catching its targets and better at staying under their guns/outrunning their missiles/maintaining point once it's got them. It's not as capable in a frigate dogfight, but then again, it's not supposed to be. A tracking bonus on the Jag wouldn't hurt the Claw, nor would it upset balance in any meaningful way, it'd just make the Jag better at what it's supposed to do, unlike the useless optimal bonus. As for requiring specific roles for AFs beyond 'tankier, gankier variants of their T1 counterparts', I don't agree at all with that. It's OK for a Vaga to be a Stabber, only much better; it's OK for a Curse to be an Arbitrator, only much better; it's OK for a Jag to be a Rifter, only much better.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.04.20 07:11:00 - [43] Originally by: Ophelia Ursus As for requiring specific roles for AFs beyond 'tankier, gankier variants of their T1 counterparts', I don't agree at all with that. It's OK for a Vaga to be a Stabber, only much better; it's OK for a Jag to be a Rifter, only much better. It's the execution of their current concept that's lacking, not the concept itself. I agree. Also, when you start doing frigate hulls which have specialty combat roles it's easy to make them hillariously OP or completely worthless. This is why I thought adding EAFs in the game was a bad idea; a mini-recon has essentially two states it can be in - which are OP and junk. People who would like all of their disadvantages go away are asking for a OP ship. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Ophelia Ursus	Posted - 2010.04.20 09:54:00 - [44] Bleh, since I'm at my wits' end with work, I will propose an alternative set of AF rebalancing measures. First, the whole class needs to go on a diet and take some dancing lessons. Mass and inertia modifiers should be brought in line with those of their T1 counterparts. Combat frigates are supposed to be fast and agile; flying an armour tanked AF feels like piloting a brick with wings. Second, individual ship fixes plus fourth bonuses: Harpy: Slightly increase grid and CPU to ease fitting restrictions. Fourth bonus is 5% per level to shield resists. Hawk: Missile bonus swapped to the Kestrel's 10% kin dmg/5% all other dmg. Shield boost bonus swapped for 5% shield resists/level. Fitting room significantly increased such that it can reasonably fit a 20 - 24km point, meta 4 MSE, mwd, full rack of T2 standard launchers and at least one BCU. Fourth bonus could be a 5% per level increase in explosion velocity like the Nighthawk or a second damage bonus. Enyo: Significantly increase base cap, drop the utility high for a third mid. This allows it to fit a cap booster if it needs to hold tackle while being neuted or a web if hunting other frigates. Fourth bonus is a second 5% per level to small hybrid damage. Ishkur: No real change, can't for the life of me figure out what fourth bonus to give it (drone damage/hp would be amazingly OP). Very solid ship as is. Jaguar: Optimal bonus swapped for tracking. Reduce base speed but give it a 5%/level speed bonus like the Vaga, the net effect being that at AF IV it's as fast as it is currently, and you get a little speed boost if you train AF V. Wolf: Increase CPU, it's a real ***** to fit as it stands. Maaaybe drop the utility high for a third mid. Fourth bonus should be tracking or maybe armor repping. Vengeance: Assuming rockets get fixed, this ship needs very little beyond the reduction in mass/increased agility. Could maybe get a second 5%/level damage bonus or a reduction in explosion velocity. Retribution: No fixes, this ship is perfect as is. Certainly doesn't need any extra slots.
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.04.20 13:11:00 - [45] Originally by: Ophelia Ursus Jaguar: Optimal bonus swapped for tracking. Reduce base speed but give it a 5%/level speed bonus like the Vaga, the net effect being that at AF IV it's as fast as it is currently, and you get a little speed boost if you train AF V. Wolf: Increase CPU, it's a real ***** to fit as it stands. Maaaybe drop the utility high for a third mid. Fourth bonus should be tracking or maybe armor repping. Give the jaguar's optimal bonus to the wolf and the wolf's falloff bonus to the Jaguar. Add a tracking bonus or a speed bonus or what you see fit. That kind of thing - specifics could go on awhile. Having done that consider giving T2 resists to interceptors. In the brave new world of tracking enhancers and dramiels that would enhance their survivability and maintain flavor among the T2 frigates. And then of course the frigate killers - destroyers - need their survivability and fitting enhanced. This has been needed for a while. Everything in this area is quite a bit related.
Lugalzagezi666	Posted - 2010.04.20 13:31:00 - [46] Thats good - jag definitely needs another boost in form of tracking bonus and more speed /or falloff / - and retri doesnt need anything, while ofc enyo and wolf should get 3 mids "to hold tackle or fit cap booster." or actually
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.04.20 13:35:00 - [47] Give the retribution another low-slot for troll effect.
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.04.20 15:29:00 - [48] Originally by: Ophelia Ursus As for requiring specific roles for AFs beyond 'tankier, gankier variants of their T1 counterparts', I don't agree at all with that. It's OK for a Vaga to be a Stabber, only much better; it's OK for a Jag to be a Rifter, only much better. It's the execution of their current concept that's lacking, not the concept itself. The "tankier/gankier" versions of the tech 1 frigates are interceptors. They have more base HP, typically much more damage, much more speed and agility.
Space Pinata Amarr Discount Napkin Industries	Posted - 2010.04.20 16:01:00 - [49] I am very glad that you do not work for CCP. That is all.
Ophelia Ursus	Posted - 2010.04.20 18:29:00 - [50] Originally by: Goumindong The "tankier/gankier" versions of the tech 1 frigates are interceptors. They have more base HP, typically much more damage, much more speed and agility. In general, combat inties are slightly tankier and much faster/gankier than their T1 counterparts. The good AFs are slightly slower than their T1 counterparts and have much more gank/tank. There's room for both; the Jag, Claw, and Stiletto coexist quite happily in their current incarnations, as do the Ishkur, Taranis and Ares. Originally by: Lugalzagezi666 Oh wow. (protip: the retribution suggestion was a joke)

Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.04.21 03:59:00 - [51] Originally by: Ophelia Ursus In general, combat inties are slightly tankier and much faster/gankier than their T1 counterparts. The good AFs are slightly slower than their T1 counterparts and have much more gank/tank. But they really aren't all that great. They're good for AF's, but not really good for frigates in general. Gank/Tank notwithstanding, a frigate is not valuable unless it can prosecute pvp upon someone who does not want it prosecuted upon them. To give an extreme example of this. Lets say i had a battleship with massive tank/gank, but it could only lock targets that locked it. Would it be a valuable gang ship? Solo ship? The answer of course is no, it would be neither. We have the same situation with frigates, clearly there must be some hierarchy in terms of speed and agility, but those frigates which have the general role of killing other frigates need to be fast and agile to catch them, generally more so than their targets. Other frigates can be less so in terms of speed. The gank/tank of AF's is such that, as a general pvp ship against cruisers they're pretty weak. And their speed is such that as a general pvp ship against frigates they perform like our battleship above, they kill ships that let themselves get killed. This of course is not entirely true, but its true enough. Such that If I am looking for a heavy tackle compared to a cruiser, you're almost universally better off choosing the cruiser. E.G. Lets say that I choose between a stabber and a Jaguar. Between a Rifter and a Stabber this choice doesn't make much sense because the Rifter is faster than the Stabber even if the Stabber has speed and agility mods. But not so with the Jaguar. Such that the Stabber has more EHP than the Jag (1 LSE on the stabber, 1 MSE, 1 DCII on the Jag), more agility, more dps(with dual 180s vs 220s on the jag). As a heavy tackler the Stabber pretty much wins everything. (yes, it certainly doesn't do everything better, but its not exactly like the Stabber is the greatest cruiser) Then, if we do that, and make AFs "better frigates" we come to a conundrum. If we make AF's fast enough to perform well as general frigates then we are going to seriously restrict the ships that the "combat inties" can kill since people will substitute away from tech 1 frigates towards AF's. And in doing so, we're going to seriously restrict the role of the combat inties. And then they would need a rewrite. This would not be so bad in and of itself, there is nothing that says any ship should have any particular role except racial paradigms. But, we would be doing it without adding any other role into the game. We would start with a set of frigates able to perform certain roles to some level and end with a set of frigates able to perform the same set of roles to roughly the same level. This however, is not so great. Not only is it undesirable to have ships that are dominated in role, but the more ships that this applies to that do not have another real role the worse it gets. We would be simply substituting the role from one ship to another and that I am not comfortable doing. I am much more comfortable doing this with tech 1 cruisers since their current status remains relatively unchanged and they aren't taking role dominance away from HACs. (which is to say, it would be nice to add more roles, but its better to have more competitors in each role than less if you can't do that) Its for this reason that I like the AF's as new roles rather than "tech 1 but better". If the frigate platforms were not so saturated already then i would be much more comfortable doing it the way you propose. But as it stands we just run out of roles for them to do without requiring an entire re-imagining of a significant part of the frigate line up. And if we have to do that, might as well do it to the ships that are generally without a role already. I hope that clears it up. If not, please let me know where.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.04.21 05:21:00 - [52] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 21/04/2010 05:21:25 Originally by: Goumindong For instance, the proposed Moa is actually quite strong, either in a short range meta-fitting or a longer ranged set. The key is to have choices between them, and to let the ship have some aspect it does better than battlecruisers. Not it is not "quite strong". With a short range fit, it is utter trash that is dominated by the nanocane in every possible way. With a long range fit, compared to the Ferox, it has 10% more range. The Ferox, however, has more dps (= more range unless you're already using spike ammo), more tank, a gang mod, and an extra mid to fit another tracking computer and negate the Moa's extra 10% range bounus. Quote: You clearly didn't read the section on focus fire incentives. The simple fact is that your proposal is a solution in need of a problem. The correct solution to the "problem" of focused fire is to do absolutely nothing. Quote: It really is optimal for people to use active setups in small gangs that they have not already secured remote logistics for. Congratulations on once again missing the point. Fitting is not the issue. Active tanks will fit just fine if you want to use one, but nobody does. In fact, your problem makes things even worse because with LAR grid reduced to the level of 1600mm plates, you'll have battleship armor reps on battlecruisers, T3 cruisers, and even some HACs! Cap is not the main issue. Is it a drawback? Of course, and that's how it should be. But it's not so crippling that you can't supply the required cap if you really want to. The fundamental issue is that the break-even point is too long to make active tanks useful, especially once you consider the fact that a buffer tank still works decently well in the situations where active tanks are good, but an active tank collapses completely when buffer tanks are required. Since you can't predict the fights you will encounter when you pick which setup to undock with, the choice is obvious. Quote: The tech 2 skill grind violates one of the central design choices of EVE. Here is a nice little example for you, since you are so clueless: Currently even at 60+ million SP, I still have to make choices. I want another T2 battleship, but do I train Amarr or Minmatar? Either one is a good option, but which will be the best in a couple months when I finish the skills and start flying one? Will I still be doing the same kind PvP? Will game balance change? Or maybe I should train Gallente in anticipation of a blaster boost? Etc. Your proposal removes this element entirely: you train both in a few days and get 90% of the results with zero commitment. Quote: It is the same with cloaks, they violate a central tenet of game design. Space is not safe you should not get to avoid all repercussions in any instance, let alone for the cost of a cheap module. You are correct that space is not safe. However, this applies to the cloak whiners. The overwhelming majority of the time, it's carebears whining and crying about how their 0.0 system isn't safe to rat in because that cloaked ship in local MIGHT decide to fight. Allowing cloaks to be probed would make them completely useless. You might as well just remove all covops ships from the game if you're going to do that. Quote: With regards to the last two things... Yea never said either of those. Got close to saying one(the eagle one, but it was in regards to anti-support sniping, not "all HACs"), but that was a fairly nuanced position Liar. You whined and cried about how a 5-gun Eagle would be massively overpowered and make all other snipers obsolete. Well, guess what, we got a 5-gun Eagle and nobody uses it, *even as a sniper*. You also whined and cried about how this would be a crippling nerf to the Zealot because the only purpose for the Zealot is sniping, and refused to listen to anything about how effective a pulse Zealot is. -----------
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2010.04.21 05:29:00 - [53] Originally by: Goumindong It's for this reason that I like the AF's as new roles rather than "tech 1 but better". Except there are two problems here: 1) Your supposed "new role" is a complete joke. Your smartbombing probe AFs are hilariously useless if your covert ops pilot isn't a complete idiot. 2) The problem with AFs is not their role, it's the execution of that role. The solution is to fix that execution, not delete half of them entirely (see #1). I'll even be nice and tell you how to fix AFs: 1) Reduce build cost to interceptor levels, if not a bit lower (possibly decreasing interceptor cost a bit as well). 2) Add the missing 4th bonus, which gives an easy way to fix most of the current balance issues between AFs. 3) Give the Retribution at least one more mid so that it isn't completely useless. 4) Fix the grid/cpu on some of them (ex: Hawk) to allow proper fits (and that means buffer tank + MWD + 24k + cap booster). 5) Increase roflket and light missile dps by 50-100% (depending on whether the Hawk gets a second damage bonus) and fix roflket "tracking" so that they can actually do useful dps to frigates without multiple webs. -----------
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.04.21 06:29:00 - [54] Originally by: Merin Ryskin With a short range fit, it is utter trash that is dominated by the nanocane in every possible way. So is every short range cruiser. Not sure what the issue is. Quote: With a long range fit, compared to the Ferox, it has 10% more range. The Ferox, however, has more dps (= more range unless you're already using spike ammo), more tank, a gang mod, and an extra mid to fit another tracking computer and negate the Moa's extra 10% range bonus. My mistake, error in editing, should be a 50% bonus to optimal Quote: The simple fact is that your proposal is a solution in need of a problem. The correct solution to the "problem" of focused fire is to do absolutely nothing. Why? Note, that the solution given does not require people to not focus fire. So if you don't want to get more loot, you're perfectly free to not do so. Quote: The fundamental issue is that the break-even point is too long to make active tanks useful, especially once you consider the fact that a buffer tank still works decently well in the situations where active tanks are good Not really, no. The simple fact is people largely do not see the benefits of fitting reps, not that they aren't there.They look at the overall picture and fail to examine the margin. If you're in a small gang do you care if you have plates or not and you run into a massive gang? A: Not really, you're toast either way. Do you care if you run into a smaller gang? A: Yes. This extends beyond the simple DPS break point (which is one of the things people do not see) because DPS drops during a fight Quote: Your proposal removes this element entirely: you train both in a few days and get 90% of the results with zero commitment. Not really, no. You can get a lot of it, but not 90%. But even then, is that really such a bad thing? Specialization becomes the reward and not the requirement. Quote: You are correct that space is not safe. However, this applies to the cloak whiners. The overwhelming majority of the time, it's carebears whining and crying about how their 0.0 system isn't safe to rat in because that cloaked ship in local MIGHT decide to fight. Allowing cloaks to be probed would make them completely useless. You might as well just remove all covops ships from the game if you're going to do that. So what you're saying is that since some people don't like to be killed that it makes it OK for other people to be completely safe? Because frankly I don't get it. The arguments against cloaks work just as well for the arguments against ratters(and its why there are changes to local such that its easier to get the jump on targets in the paper). Just because some people advocating for one are exploiting the other doesn't mean that either should be unchanged. As for ending cloaked ships? No, that is just foolish if you think that the suggested changes would end cloaked ships. That is, unless you're too incompetent to move your ship, align, warp, and use the directional scanner. Quote: Liar. You whined and cried about how a 5-gun Eagle would be massively overpowered and make all other snipers obsolete. Well, guess what, we got a 5-gun Eagle and nobody uses it, even as a sniper. You also whined and cried about how this would be a crippling nerf to the Zealot because the only purpose for the Zealot is sniping, and refused to listen to anything about how effective a pulse Zealot is. No, actually. I said it would be clearly the best anti-support and that other ships should have purchase in that role. I did not say that the pulse zealot sucked. I said that the existence of the pulse zealot is no reason have the Muninn and Zealot be dominated in their primary role. The Eagle is actually still quite good, it mainly loses out to the Zealot and Muninn only because of its speed(for LR HAC gangs), and is the best anti-support. It should be noted that the other role of the pulse Zealot did not exist at that time(that cat is out of the bag right?)
Goumindong SniggWaffe	Posted - 2010.04.21 06:36:00 - [55] Originally by: Merin Ryskin 1) Your supposed "new role" is a complete joke. Your smartbombing probe AFs are hilariously useless if your covert ops pilot isn't a complete idiot. Really? Your cov-ops pilot can independently probe, tackle, and survive combat long enough for the gang to get there from another system before the target decides its time to leave? Quote: 2) The problem with AFs is not their role, it's the execution of that role. The solution is to fix that execution, not delete half of them entirely (see #1). Why not? I would like to think that I had presented a fairly cogent argument as to why the role is not acceptable. What makes those arguments fall flat? Quote: I'll even be nice and tell you how to fix AFs: OK, so they get a bit cheaper by materials, gain some gank or tank but still are lower than cruisers in all respects, the retribution is made to only be "pretty much useless" rather than "completely useless" and all rockets and light missile ships receive a ridiculously massive increase in DPS That accomplishes what? To massively boost the crow and still leave the AF's pretty much dominated by tech 1 cruisers? How does this fix the problem?
Braitai Ice Fire Warriors	Posted - 2010.04.21 07:49:00 - [56] Originally by: Merin Ryskin 5) Increase roflket and light missile dps by 50-100% (depending on whether the Hawk gets a second damage bonus) and fix roflket "tracking" so that they can actually do useful dps to frigates without multiple webs. You said something similar in the boost rockets thread, I'm still wondering what you're thinking with it. You do realise if you double SML damage, an AML Caracal will do 350dps with missiles alone, at 60km, right? Not to mention 200dps Crows... Without order nothing can exist. Without chaos nothing can evolve.
Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.04.21 11:07:00 - [57] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 21/04/2010 11:09:04 Originally by: Goumindong OK, so they get a bit cheaper by materials, gain some gank or tank but still are lower than cruisers in all respects Except stuff like speed, locktime, warp speed, ability to evade stuff, etc. It's a frigate hull. It has advantages intristic to the frigate hull chassis. Besides, if you want a covops probing tackler AF, what's the point of flying it when both covops frigs exist and Arazu exists? Covops frigs (Anathema) can somewhat hold point vs various failboats. Arazu can hold point on practically anything. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.04.21 11:19:00 - [58] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 21/04/2010 11:09:04 Originally by: Goumindong OK, so they get a bit cheaper by materials, gain some gank or tank but still are lower than cruisers in all respects Except stuff like speed, locktime, warp speed, ability to evade stuff, etc. It's a frigate hull. It has advantages intristic to the frigate hull chassis. Besides, if you want a covops probing tackler AF, what's the point of flying it when both covops frigs exist and Arazu exists? Covops frigs (Anathema) can somewhat hold point vs various failboats. Arazu can hold point on practically anything. Why do you want to overcomplicate eve?, it should be all about ehp*dps nothing else matters anyway...
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2010.04.21 11:29:00 - [59] I did like the idea of the prophecy as the vanilla EW/drone platform.
Ophelia Ursus	Posted - 2010.04.21 12:47:00 - [60] Edited by: Ophelia Ursus on 21/04/2010 12:48:23 Originally by: Goumindong The gank/tank of AF's is such that, as a general pvp ship against cruisers they're pretty weak. And their speed is such that as a general pvp ship against frigates they perform like our battleship above, they kill ships that let themselves get killed. This of course is not entirely true, but its true enough. Such that If I am looking for a heavy tackle compared to a cruiser, you're almost universally better off choosing the cruiser. E.G. Lets say that I choose between a stabber and a Jaguar. Between a Rifter and a Stabber this choice doesn't make much sense because the Rifter is faster than the Stabber even if the Stabber has speed and agility mods. But not so with the Jaguar. Such that the Stabber has more EHP than the Jag (1 LSE on the stabber, 1 MSE, 1 DCII on the Jag), more agility, more dps(with dual 180s vs 220s on the jag). As a heavy tackler the Stabber pretty much wins everything. (yes, it certainly doesn't do everything better, but its not exactly like the Stabber is the greatest cruiser) Then, if we do that, and make AFs "better frigates" we come to a conundrum. If we make AF's fast enough to perform well as general frigates then we are going to seriously restrict the ships that the "combat inties" can kill since people will substitute away from tech 1 frigates towards AF's. And in doing so, we're going to seriously restrict the role of the combat inties. And then they would need a rewrite. For a start, pretty much everything you've said about the Jag is wrong. It's both faster and more agile than a Stabber, and more to the point, if you're using them as heavy tackle, they fulfil the role differently. The stabber wants to sit 15 - 20 km off the target with a long point, plinking away with barrage. It'll stop the target from warping but won't hurt its maneuverability. The jag wants to burn to within 500m of the target and scram it, killing its mobility. With a nos and capless guns, it can hold point in the face of moderate neuting, and once it's made the tackle, its tank is speed and sig, not raw EHP; it only really needs its buffer while it's approaching and popping drones. Second, your insistence that good AFs obsolete combat inties is just theorycrafting without regard for the state of things on TQ. Again, there are currently two OK-ish AFs in the Jag and the Ishkur; neither obsoletes their racial combat inty. The Taranis is a good and popular ship; the Claw is a good and popular ship (well, OK, the Dramiel has kind of usurped their roles recently, but the less said about that the better). Giving AFs the speed and maneuverability of their T1 counterparts isn't going to destroy this balance (again, the Jag's speed and agility are already very comparable to a 400mm plated Rifter). Frigates thrive on speed and maneuverability, and combat inties will easily retain a role even with buffed AFs.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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