Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => General Non-RP EVE Discussion => Topic started by: kalaratiri on 18 Jul 2013, 09:29
-
*squee (mk2)* (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263720&find=unread)
Hello!
Lets get back to this HAC thing. The first HAC proposal raised discussion around tons of topics (you can find it HERE (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=260029) if you don't believe me). Common ones included our overall design for tech levels, the way HACs intersect with tech 1, tech 3, and faction ships and of course specific input on ship-by-ship stats and performance. I want to try and cover as much of this as possible so get some tea or something.
Lets start with role. We've had several presentations and posts and dev blogs now which explain that tech 1 is general and tech 2 is specialized. While this is certainly our high-level goal, it will be compromised occasionally when the specifics of a certain project have other goals that pull in another direction. HACs are an example. The reality is that when HACs were first introduced they were just cruisers on steroids. The defensive benefits of added resists were the most distinct 'specialization', but they were nowhere near as specialized as something like Recons or Stealth Bombers.
With the rebalance effort here, we discussed entirely new roles or specializations that would be more in-line with the high level ideas we have laid out for all EVE ships, but ultimately decided that it wasn't worth completely throwing out the ships we had. Not only do they have a lot of history in the game, which leads to attachment, but they also have a lot of legitimate use already which we wanted to avoid disrupting if possible.
Now all that said, most of the feedback was in agreement that you would prefer to have their role more clear and pronounced. Basically, we didn't go far enough by adding the role bonus and it would be better if they stood out more from their competition as being specialized in some way. So, we focused on their resilience. HACs are tough but mobile cruisers that can take a lot of punishment. What we want to do is extend that tenacity to some of their other systems, namely electronics and capacitor.
- All HACs will gain 7-8 sensor strength, putting their average Sensor Strength at 22 which is right around combat battleship range.
- All HACs gain 15k to 25k lock range
- All HACs have their cap recharge per second set to around 5.5 rather than the former 3.5 - 4.5 cap/sec
Along with these changes, we are going to go ahead with the originally proposed role bonus. I've seen and participated in tons of talk about this bonus and I keep seeing the same problem - the tracking formula is not intuitive and the confusion leads to this bonus looking less powerful than it actually is. I've made another set of graphs to help illustrate, but please keep in mind that this is just one example and results may vary.
DAMAGE GRAPHS (http://i.imgur.com/k1Ywogy.png)
On the left is the damage that three different ships (Null Blaster Talos, HML Drake and AHAC Zealot) do to a Sacrilege with its MWD on without the role bonus. On the right is after the role bonus. You can see that the Zealot, which tracks extremely well, isn't heavily affected, but the Talos and the Drake lose about 25% of their DPS. Now we can have a new discussion about how important that 25% is, but its important to understand that we are usually talking about an extremely significant amount of damage mitigation when MWD is active. And again, we know that not all HACs will be running MWDs, but we feel that those configurations are plenty powerful and prefer to support a larger variety of applications by adding the MWD bonus.
Alright, lets get to specifics. The big takeaway from feedback (both CSM and public thread) was that we have more room to make HACs more powerful without putting too much pressure on their competition, so watch for that as you read through all the changes. Note: the differences appearing in (parentheses) are as compared to the version of ship on TQ currently, not the first iteration.
The Ships!
SACRILEGE
We wanted to get rid of the cap recharge bonus, as it is both kind of dated and strange, and also doesn't do much for a ship that doesn't even use cap for its main weapon system. We played with a lot of options but ultimately settled on a Missile Velocity bonus which should be very helpful in projecting some of that HAM damage. Other changes include tweaks to fitting, slightly lowered Signature radius, and of course the electronics changes. While we did not role the entire benefit of the former cap recharge bonus into the base stats, the Sacrilege does retain the highest cap/second of any Heavy Assault Cruisers.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses:
5% to Heavy Assault and Heavy Missile damage (added heavy missiles)
4% to all Armor Resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile velocity (was capacitor recharge time)
5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 1 turrets(-3), 5 launchers
Fittings: 1100 PWG(+70), 420 CPU(+20)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1200(-193) / 2100(+12) / 1690(+2)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1700(+75) / 255s (-80s) / 6.66s (+1.8)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 200(+2) / .567 / 11750000(-540000) / 9.24s(-.4)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50(+35) / 50(+35)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+20km) / 312 / 7
Sensor strength: 22 Radar(+7)
Signature radius: 135(-5)
ZEALOT
No big changes here other than the electronics and cap changes.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Amarr Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret capacitor use
5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret rate of fire
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret optimal range
5% bonus to Medium Energy Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H, 3M, 7L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 1180 PWG, 320 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 980(-4) / 2250 / 1670(-18)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1500 / 285s (-50s) / 5.26/s (+.78)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+1) / .553 / 12580000 / 9.64s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 75km(+20km) / 306 / 6
Sensor strength: 21 Radar(+8)
Signature radius: 125
=============================================================================
CERBERUS
In the first iteration we didn't quite go far enough with the Cerb in terms of power. In this pass we are going further to support its role as both a long range missile platform and a potential skirmisher by increasing its speed significantly and also adding more fitting to make fielding the extra launcher more comfortable. The change to cap recharge should go a long way to help the Cerb.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Kinetic Missile damage
10% bonus to Missile velocity
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Missile flight time
5% bonus to Missile Launcher rate of fire
Slot layout: 6H, 5M, 4L; 0 turrets, 6 launchers(+1)
Fittings: 800 PWG(+165), 520 CPU(+80)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2000(-4) / 1200(+4) / 1400(-6)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1200(+137.5) / 235s (-100s) / 5.1/s (+1.93)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 220(+45) / .463 / 12720000 / 8.17s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 15(+15) / 15(+15)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 95km(+15km) / 282 / 6
Sensor strength: 24 Gravimetric(+8)
Signature radius: 135
EAGLE
For the Eagle there aren't huge changes. Along with the electronics and cap changes we are going to speed it up slightly, lower the signature radius by 10 and make some small adjustments to the fitting so that fitting rails is a little easier.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Caldari Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
4% bonus to shield resistances
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 6M(+1), 4L; 5 turrets, 2 launchers
Fittings: 990 PWG(+115), 440 CPU(+2)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 2500(+391) / 1250(-16) / 1550(+3)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1350(-25) / 255s (-80s) / 5.29/s (+1.2)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 180(+16) / .576 / 11720000 / 9.36s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 90km(+20km) / 252 / 8
Sensor strength: 25 Gravimetric(+7)
Signature radius: 140(-10)
=============================================================================
DEIMOS
For the Deimos we are bumping the speed up some more, lowering the Signature Radius slightly and of course adding the electronics and cap changes. We did look closely at the MWD cap use bonus and in the end decided that there wasn't any replacement compelling enough to warrant a change.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Armor Repair amount
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret falloff
5% Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Slot layout: 5H(-1), 4M(+1), 6L; 5 turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 1050 PWG(+60), 360 CPU(+10)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1200(+40) / 2100(+60) / 2550(+19)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400(+25) / 225s (-110s) / 6.2/s (+2.1)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 230(+22) / .475(-.055) / 11460000 / 7.54s(-.875)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 85km(+20km) / 270 / 6
Sensor strength: 22 Magnetometric(+7)
Signature radius: 150(-10)
ISHTAR
I think the Ishtar had the most alarm bells after the first wave of feedback so it got some of the biggest changes. First of all, we rolled the drone bay bonus into the base stats and replaced it. Rather than the blanket 10% tracking and optimal drone bonus, we split the bonus into two more specialized bonuses. One to Sentry drone optimal and tracking, and another on Heavy Drone speed and tracking. Along with that we made a big adjustment to fitting Big smile
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Gallente Cruiser Bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Heavy Drone speed and tracking(was 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage)
10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
5 km bonus to Drone operation range per level
7.5% bonus to Sentry Drone optimal range and tracking speed(was bonus to drone bay capacity)
Slot layout: 4H(-1), 5M, 5L; 4 turrets(+1), 0 launchers
Fittings: 780 PWG(+80), 340 CPU(+55)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1400 (-6) / 1600 (-18) / 2300 (+191)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1400 (+275) / 265s (-70s) / 5.28/s (+1.9)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 195(+4) / .52 / 11100000 / 8.43s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 125 / 375(+250)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+20km) / 294 / 7
Sensor strength: 23 Magnetometric (+7)
Signature radius: 145
=============================================================================
VAGABOND
Wow the Vagabond. So for changes we bumped the speed up just a touch so that its almost exactly the same as before (if you had HAC 5), gave it the electronics and cap recharge change and otherwise left it more or less as proposed.
Let me say a few things here about the shield boost bonus and why we chose it. We wanted to replace the outdated base speed bonus with something that would be fun and interesting but wouldn't have a huge effect on the power of the ship, as it was already the second most used HAC. CCP Fozzie suggest shield boost amount because it matches up nicely with other Minmatar ships, provides some fun new potential, and is relatively low risk because of its small impact at larger scales. For some reason this has been interpreted by many as a repurposing of the Vagabond as a brawler. IT IS NOT, I PROMISE. If I was going to use the new Vagabond, I would be looking to do the same exact thing that its always been good at - skirmish. However, I would be excited about the fact that you can replace one of your large shield extenders with a large ancillary shield booster, which in one reload creates more hitpoints than the extender (before links/boosters/heat which make it even better), but can be reloaded over the course of a long fight. The Vaga is actually extremely good at taking advantage of that potential because of being able to control its time in the engagement with its impressive speed. If this doesn't sound attractive, ignore the active bonus! The ship will perform exactly as it always has with the double extender fit except now it mitigates tons of damage because of the role bonus.
The other big problem with the Vaga is the Cynabal. That is not a problem we want to address by having an arms race between the two during this rebalance. The Cynabal needs a look and I'm sure when we get to pirate cruisers we can solve the problem.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
7.5% bonus to shield boost amount (was 5% bonus to max velocity)
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret falloff
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Slot layout: 6H, 4M, 5L; 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-1)
Fittings: 855 PWG, 400 CPU(+5)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1750(+97) / 1400(+63) / 980(-4)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1200(+137.5) / 245s (-90s) / 4.9/s (+1.7)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 295(+56) / .504 / 11590000 / 8.1s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 70km(+20km) / 330 / 6(+1)
Sensor strength: 21 Ladar(+7)
Signature radius: 115
MUNINN
Lowering Signature Radius a bit but no large changes here.
Role Bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Minmatar Cruiser Bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
Heavy Assault Cruiser Bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret optimal range
7.5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret tracking speed
Slot layout: 6H(-1), 3M, 6L(+1); 5 turrets, 1 launchers(-2)
Fittings: 1160 PWG, 355 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1580(-2) / 2000(-4) / 1400(-6)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap/s) : 1300(+50) / 255s (-80s) / 5.1/s (+1.4)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 210(+14) / .571 / 11750000 / 9.3s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 80km(+25km) / 294 / 6(+1)
Sensor strength: 21 Ladar(+8)
Signature radius: 125(-5)
-
Prom will be furious about the removal of the utility high on the Deimos, but I guess the added mid makes up for it.
Muninn looks gorgeous, gonna miss the double smartbombs though :P
-
anyone sees the Cerb taking over as the uber-kiter?
-
I'll be in my bunk
-
Cerberus and new Ishtar FOTM incoming
-
I'll be interested to see if the medium rail buff puts competition between the Diemos and the Eagle for "best rail kitey-sniper".
-
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 1750(+97) / 1400(+63) / 980(-4)
As Mynnna just pointed out on Twitter (https://twitter.com/mynnna_eve/status/357930222634541057), this means the Vagabond no longer has 1337 base armor HP. xD
-
Meh.
-
I'll be interested to see if the medium rail buff puts competition between the Diemos and the Eagle for "best rail kitey-sniper".
I suspect it'll fall into a very similar dichotomy to the Naga and Talos in terms of the way they would compare to each other.
-
Prom will be furious about the removal of the utility high on the Deimos
Called it.
WTF HAVE THEY DONE TO MY FUCKING DEIMOS!? Seriously? That's fucking garbage. Absolutely fucking garbage. Now you've got a shitty injector-reliant repper, or a shitty kiter, or shitty cap.
The mwd bonus is borderline useless now because brawling (the ships fucking role) cap is fixed to an injector and therefore who cares how good it will mwd. Before if you paired mwd+nos, you could run a rep off of that nos and maintain fire/tackle under neut pressure.
The Deimos was unique in that it offered an active armor platform that didn't rely on consumables for long ranges or extended fights. Now its the same as every other fucking thing.
To sum up Gallente brawling cruisers now, why would I bother flying a thorax hull when the vexor is better in every way and has the same drawbacks. Fucking CCP.
Edit: am right fucking annoyed now
-
To be fair, he isn't wrong.
-
To be fair, he isn't wrong.
Oh aye, he's completely right. Some of the changes make me happy (the Eagle has gone from utter garbage to at least moderately acceptable, the Sac is looking lovely and the Muninn is one of my favorite ships ever), however some of them, like the Deimos, do leave me confused as to what exactly they are thinking this will change. Except turning every single HAC into med-to-long ranged skirmishers, which I'm not sure I like..
-
These changes definitely have a hint of "Welp, brawling is dead, may as well make everything kitey now, otherwise it will be shit!"
-
To be fair, he isn't wrong.
Oh aye, he's completely right. Some of the changes make me happy (the Eagle has gone from utter garbage to at least moderately acceptable, the Sac is looking lovely and the Muninn is one of my favorite ships ever), however some of them, like the Deimos, do leave me confused as to what exactly they are thinking this will change. Except turning every single HAC into med-to-long ranged skirmishers, which I'm not sure I like..
It's what they have always been designed for since the beginning. Brawling with a Deimos was kind of like doing it wrong in my experience (but maybe it has changed since then... vOv). I don't see the point to take a 100++ M ship to do what a brutix does almost better.
-
To be fair, he isn't wrong.
Oh aye, he's completely right. Some of the changes make me happy (the Eagle has gone from utter garbage to at least moderately acceptable, the Sac is looking lovely and the Muninn is one of my favorite ships ever), however some of them, like the Deimos, do leave me confused as to what exactly they are thinking this will change. Except turning every single HAC into med-to-long ranged skirmishers, which I'm not sure I like..
It's what they have always been designed for since the beginning. Brawling with a Deimos was kind of like doing it wrong in my experience (but maybe it has changed since then... vOv). I don't see the point to take a 100++ M ship to do what a brutix does almost better.
The old nos/plate/rep Deimos actually worked pretty well as a brawler in comparison to the brutix due to the higher speed, better resists and much smaller sig radius. The bonuses also made it much better at chasing things without capping itself out and being unable to shoot anything when it arrives in range.
Right now, I'd take a Scythe Fleet Issue over basically any of these HACs. The sig tank you can get on that is really something special, as well as a utility high and a better base speed than any of the HACs except the Vagabond.
-
I may be wrong of course but I still do think that "chasing things" all around with a blaster ship is completely doing it wrong. Dx
-
I may be wrong of course but I still do think that "chasing things" all around with a blaster ship is completely doing it wrong. Dx
Unfortunately in this world of kiting supremacy, "chasing things" is more or less mandatory unless you manage to land on them at 0.
-
I dislike the Kitey mechanic of video games because it's so binary : either it works and nothing can stop it, or you're screwed and throw your fighting capability. Brawling is in a similarly bad situation, forcing the two in a very simple rock/paper/shotgun situation...
-
Hey guys, I'm back at work after having nightmares all night of running out of Ishtar CPU
We're reading all this, as usual, and will iterate based on it, as usual. We have some time (because everyone here is on vacation so I can do what I want #yolobalancing) so I want to wait until after the weekend to commit to anything. I might post again in a bit about some of our high level strategy as there is clearly some frustration about the contrast between HACs and the nice powerpoints about T2 specialization.
Please keep up the discussion and I'll be back soon with more info.
This is possibly the scariest thing I have ever read.
-
Did a CCP member seriously just use the phrase "yolo"?
Somebody find him, gank him, pod him, and throw the corpse off the top of the CCP headquarters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXRFJ2ar_E).
-
(http://b.mfcimg.com/chat_images/u/6c/6cba6e2c.x120.gif)
My reaction to most of the changes.
-
I am glad he at least recognizes that HACs do not fit their so called T2 specialization concept. Thats what I was expecting in the first place...
NB : Kat, your pic doesn't show.
I may be wrong of course but I still do think that "chasing things" all around with a blaster ship is completely doing it wrong. Dx
Unfortunately in this world of kiting supremacy, "chasing things" is more or less mandatory unless you manage to land on them at 0.
That's why you usually don't try to chase them around since it's more or less doomed if the guy knows what he is doing at least a little. Either you engage at 0, either you avoid engagement until better situation arises.
That's why I also agree with Ghost. There are so many things that made me stop pvp in Eve, and this is one part of it.
-
These changes definitely have a hint of "Welp, brawling is dead, may as well make everything kitey now, otherwise it will be shit!"
This. I find myself agreeing with Prom 100%. I liked the changes here until I got to the Deimos. But as you say, seems CCP would rather make everything uber at kiting because the game has forgotten what it was like to do some brawling.
RIP my favorite play-style. Maybe in a few years players will have the spine to go out in brawl fits again, but I honestly don't think we will ever see that again.
*edit*
I may be wrong of course but I still do think that "chasing things" all around with a blaster ship is completely doing it wrong. Dx
There was a time when I did this on a daily basis and it worked just fine, flying an 'all purpose' Thorax was doable and fully functional - MWD, point, web, blasters, active tank, light attack and light jam drones, 1-2 nos and you were set to engage just about anything in your own weight category, anything below, and the occasional BC and BS depending on situation/fit. As you might have noticed, this play-style is practically extinct by now.
Anyhow, I'll keep this information in mind, re-fit my ships again when I get online next (I've done a lot of this recently) and compensate. We all pretty much have to.
-
By chasing things I mean running desperately around trying to catch something too fast for you.
And I never really enjoyed old pvp much too since it was totally crippled by its lot of problems. Vive le nanonerf.
-
Eh, I'm sure it'll all get changed up again if the rage continues.
-
Eh, I'm sure it'll all get changed up again if the rage continues.
More than likely.
CCP's already said they post upcoming changes in F&I because they want to know what we think and it's not set in stone yet.
Balancing is something easier to change as far as workload, I'd think. Doesn't mean wasted art assets and code if they don't go for the initial plan as presented. Just change the numbers and have more coffee table group talks on how this-n-that ship will be affected in the meta.
-
Balancing is something easier to change as far as workload, I'd think. Doesn't mean wasted art assets and code if they don't go for the initial plan as presented. Just change the numbers and have more coffee table group talks on how this-n-that ship will be affected in the meta.
No doubt. But some of the changes don't even seem that well thought out, even for an initial pass. I think it comes from HACs not really having a specialised role, but I think that was stated earlier.
-
I haven't flown HAC's at all, so I can't weigh in on if these changes are good or bad, but....
When I hear HAC, I see a cruiser size ship that can take a beating and dish out it's own. If finding HAC's a role, the only role I could think for them would be to get rid of Battle cruisers, and put HAC's in their place. This is of course just going off the name of the Class of ships, and not their actually stats.
-
I would love if there were some 'web bombs' or some similar new area effect devices to counter all this kitin'
-
Mai Eagle! Mai Die-most! :cube:
-
I would love if there were some 'web bombs' or some similar new area effect devices to counter all this kitin'
I believe web bombs are called "Huginns" ^_^
-
I would love if there were some 'web bombs' or some similar new area effect devices to counter all this kitin'
I think that the root of the problem lies deeper than that. It's kind of the same issue on other MMOs as well, but here magnified in Eve.
If you add web bombs, it does not negate the fact that it's either all or nothing. With web bombs you just kill kiting altogether.
As I said the main issue is it's either all or nothing. Either you are in range at the start of the engagement, and you kill the kiter, or either you are not and you end up kited to death without being able to do anything.
The main issue is thus the fact that pvp asks for one thing most of the time : specialization over versatility. One of the first thing you learn in pvp is that you never mix short range and long range weapons, and for a reason. The only "versatility" you can find in that game is the usual cookie cutter configurations being able to face most threats with most efficiency like hurricanes in the past, etc (less obvious with the recent changes now, which is good, but leaves the kiting issue even more prevalent).
I mean, as long as people can specialize, they will always choose to specialize the most possible so that they can use 100% of their potential in a few specific kinds of situations. Otherwise, they just avoid combat, which often leads to the dreaded rock paper scissors dilemnas in solo or very small group pvp. Eventually you have scissors systematically fleeing rocks, rocks systematically fleeing papers, and so on, unless rocks meet rocks and start a fight since they are on even terms. That's the bane of solo pvp. That's why you miss 95% of the fights you could get otherwise. Unless one kind of setup becomes so prevalent in the meta that everyone start to use it, so eventually people will choose to fight more often, but... with doppleganger cookie-cutter setups, which was the bane of solo pvp in the past (dare to fight differently, like with a brawler, and you were relegated to never find a fight or being griefed).
That is a less of a curse in group or fleet pvp since complementarity and synergy comes into the equation, where people can fill the deficiencies of their comrades while their comrades do the same for them.
-
@ Lyn -
I was wondering, when you say that an issue is not to mix long range and short range weapons, would this include the use of drones?
What I am thinking *(and bear in mind, I don't know much about PvP yet), could you fit a ship for a sniper role, then have drones for if the ship comes in close, or does the Kiter running a MWD make this not possible?
Also I know some ships can fit both turrets and missiles, would it be gimping yourself too much to fit long range turrets, and rockets for if the kiter gets in to close, or does this fall into the above issue with MWD making it not work?
~ Kazuma
-
That's why you miss 95% of the fights you could get otherwise.
The thing is, though, that's part and parcel of the solo pvp game. Any decent solo pvp pilot has at least a reasonable idea of what they can and cannot take on, and they'll avoid the fights they can't win. Why wouldn't they? Gang warfare gets us used to the idea of frequent fights, but pure solo combat has never followed that pattern.
Since I'm mainly a frigate pilot, I'll talk mainly about frigates. That seems fair, since the majority of solo pvp happens in frigates.
I went looking for a real world equivalent to frigate pvp, and I settled on WWII aerial combat. Modern aerial warfare is the purview of aircraft armed with weapons that are largely "one hit, one kill", which doesn't really match up with Eve's "gradually wear down the hit points" model, so that's right out. WWI aircraft, with their greater or lesser emphasis on speed, agility, toughness and firepower provide an interesting analogue.
Now, granted, very little of the air combat in WWII was solo, it still provides some point of reference. We pvpers all like to think of ourselves as hot, so I went looking for combat figures for aces who survived the war, and the numbers were educational:
- "Bud" Anderson: 16.25 victories and 116 sorties - 1 kill per 7.1 missions
- Gabreski : 28 air victories and 193 missions - 1 kill per 6.9 missions
- John C. Meyer 24 victories and 200 missions - 1 kill per 8.3 missions
- Zemke 17.75 victories in 154 combat missions - 1 kill per 8.7 missions
- Lt. Col. John B. England: 17.5 victories and 108 combat mission - 1 kill per 6.2 missions
- Donald Bochkay: 13.83 victories and 123 Combat Missions - 1 kill per 8.9 missions
I also found some data about the average length of a combat mission, which was around 2-4 hours - about the same as a decent evening's roam in Eve.
These statistics are telling. On the average, these pilots got a kill every 7.6 missions, or one kill per 15-30 hours flown. Keep in mind that these pilots are all aces, and that they almost never flew in groups smaller than four, and this statistic becomes even more telling.
This doesn't reflect the number of actual fights, mind you, only the number of kills that resulted. There are estimates that only about 25-50% of fights (i.e.: where planes come into contact and start maneuvering, looking to shoot one another down) resulted in a kill, so if you're comparing that to Eve fights, the numbers are a little better: Assuming the worst statistics, that there were 4 fights per kill, we're still looking at only about one fight per two missions.
In Eve, if you're flying with a small gang for a few hours regularly, and you only got a fight every other day, you'd be upset. If 75% of those fights ended with no kills, you'd be livid.
When I was doing FW - and granted, I wasn't particularly effective in FW - I usually flew solo. I'd typically get one or two fights a night, but most of those ended with no kills (I usually flew a kiting Breacher, which has a hard time keeping people from escaping through gates). When I flew in a small gang, I'd get more fights a night, and more kills - typically 2-4 fights and at least that many kills, though if you really want to compare them to WWII victory stats you'd have to divide the kills by the number of people involved, making the stats 2-4 fights and between a half and a full kill per night.
We're fighting other people in this game, and those people have stakes in the fight. They lose and they're out a ship, possibly a clone, along with the time it takes to put together a replacement. This isn't Halo, where you just respawn and have at it.
-
@ Lyn -
I was wondering, when you say that an issue is not to mix long range and short range weapons, would this include the use of drones?
What I am thinking *(and bear in mind, I don't know much about PvP yet), could you fit a ship for a sniper role, then have drones for if the ship comes in close, or does the Kiter running a MWD make this not possible?
Also I know some ships can fit both turrets and missiles, would it be gimping yourself too much to fit long range turrets, and rockets for if the kiter gets in to close, or does this fall into the above issue with MWD making it not work?
~ Kazuma
The kiter will just kill your drones first. Since it will take him at least a little time to kill you, he has to kill the drones first. Even if light drones can follow you, they often fall in the stupid trap mechanism that makes drones burn their MWD to close the gap with the kiter, and thus not doing any damage until they are at range, to shut it down once at range, rinse and repeat.... So eventually they maybe hit the kiter 10% of the time...
And as I said above, fitting two different types of weapons except on a few exceptions - that are disappearing, like the old typhoon - is doomed to failure. Most people just either fit missiles on their TURRET ships because they have spare high slots and it slightly boost their DPS, or they just choose more generally to fit neutralizers instead (much more useful). Even if your missiles can reach your target, they will do nothing, because 1) they are not your primary weapons, so on a frigate of say, 200 DPS, 20 will actually come from your missiles, and 2) your missiles will maybe deal 20% of their actual DPS due to the speed of the kiter. Same with bonus turrets.
-
That's why you miss 95% of the fights you could get otherwise.
The thing is, though, that's part and parcel of the solo pvp game. Any decent solo pvp pilot has at least a reasonable idea of what they can and cannot take on, and they'll avoid the fights they can't win. Why wouldn't they? Gang warfare gets us used to the idea of frequent fights, but pure solo combat has never followed that pattern.
Since I'm mainly a frigate pilot, I'll talk mainly about frigates. That seems fair, since the majority of solo pvp happens in frigates.
I went looking for a real world equivalent to frigate pvp, and I settled on WWII aerial combat. Modern aerial warfare is the purview of aircraft armed with weapons that are largely "one hit, one kill", which doesn't really match up with Eve's "gradually wear down the hit points" model, so that's right out. WWI aircraft, with their greater or lesser emphasis on speed, agility, toughness and firepower provide an interesting analogue.
Now, granted, very little of the air combat in WWII was solo, it still provides some point of reference. We pvpers all like to think of ourselves as hot, so I went looking for combat figures for aces who survived the war, and the numbers were educational:
- "Bud" Anderson: 16.25 victories and 116 sorties - 1 kill per 7.1 missions
- Gabreski : 28 air victories and 193 missions - 1 kill per 6.9 missions
- John C. Meyer 24 victories and 200 missions - 1 kill per 8.3 missions
- Zemke 17.75 victories in 154 combat missions - 1 kill per 8.7 missions
- Lt. Col. John B. England: 17.5 victories and 108 combat mission - 1 kill per 6.2 missions
- Donald Bochkay: 13.83 victories and 123 Combat Missions - 1 kill per 8.9 missions
I also found some data about the average length of a combat mission, which was around 2-4 hours - about the same as a decent evening's roam in Eve.
These statistics are telling. On the average, these pilots got a kill every 7.6 missions, or one kill per 15-30 hours flown. Keep in mind that these pilots are all aces, and that they almost never flew in groups smaller than four, and this statistic becomes even more telling.
This doesn't reflect the number of actual fights, mind you, only the number of kills that resulted. There are estimates that only about 25-50% of fights (i.e.: where planes come into contact and start maneuvering, looking to shoot one another down) resulted in a kill, so if you're comparing that to Eve fights, the numbers are a little better: Assuming the worst statistics, that there were 4 fights per kill, we're still looking at only about one fight per two missions.
In Eve, if you're flying with a small gang for a few hours regularly, and you only got a fight every other day, you'd be upset. If 75% of those fights ended with no kills, you'd be livid.
When I was doing FW - and granted, I wasn't particularly effective in FW - I usually flew solo. I'd typically get one or two fights a night, but most of those ended with no kills (I usually flew a kiting Breacher, which has a hard time keeping people from escaping through gates). When I flew in a small gang, I'd get more fights a night, and more kills - typically 2-4 fights and at least that many kills, though if you really want to compare them to WWII victory stats you'd have to divide the kills by the number of people involved, making the stats 2-4 fights and between a half and a full kill per night.
We're fighting other people in this game, and those people have stakes in the fight. They lose and they're out a ship, possibly a clone, along with the time it takes to put together a replacement. This isn't Halo, where you just respawn and have at it.
That's why most games, even if trying to emulate a realistic feel (and Eve does certainly not), remain mostly games and not pure simulators. Pure simulators are boring to most people. Have you tried Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator with 100% realistic parameters ? A nightmare. It was awesome and fun at 0%-20%.
The issue to me is not that people will avoid a doomed fight, the issue is the rock/paper/scissors design. It has rarely been fun in any multiplayer game. It is something that is doomed to failure hated in RTS games where people have to guess what the other player will choose and cross their fingers to have chosen the good counter, or they are dead otherwise. Granted, we are not in a RTS, but it still bears the same shortcomings.
Without such a mechanic, either through meta where everyone flies the same shit, or through a more granular gameplay, people would not be that much able to tell "I'm not going to engage this, it's the perfect counter to what I fly".
Edit : and since we are into WW2 comparisons, pilots were definitely not telling themselves once a fight started between various models of fixed wing aircrafts "I'm not going to engage that zero fighter in close combat, it will tear me apart whatever I try" but more probably "I'm going to have a difficult time against such a plane since it has superior agility, but I can try to use the weight and rate of climb of my own plane to outmatch his abilities and take him out. And anyway I don't really have that much the choice to start with".
But the parallel stops there since most of air combat was about spotting the enemy first and relying on one's own experience (since most lethal shots, if not all, were always done to rookies in their first flights). In Eve, it's mostly "catch me if you can" jump warp jump jump warp warp.
It's boring to me.
-
I've always thought, as a pilot and an FC, that most people's views of "pvp" are rather limited. Getting the engagement, luring your opponent, finding ways to obtain a favorable tactical situation, this is what made pvp interesting to me, and all of that generally happened long before anyone pressed F1.
Mostly, I think of solo pvpers complaining about EVE mechanics making it hard to get fights pretty much like mission runners complaining about being war decced every once in awhile or freighter pilots complaining about suicide ganks: in short, theyre probably playing the wrong game for what they want.
I never thought of solo pvp as the height of EVE pvpdom, even when I did a bit of it. I'm much more interested in the interplay of pilots and various types of ships in small fleets and in engagements. (probably had the most fun in fleets under a dozen or so). Thats where EVE shines, imho, and frankly where I think EVE's focus should always be.
Being able to get interesting fights is a skill, probably the most important PVP skill. And it will always be a skill, one that needs to be learned and mastered, regardless of whatever game changes CCP might make. Altaen was simply brilliant at it, for instance, but a lot of EM's best pilots and FCs knew how and where to get consistent engagements whether their fleets were large or a bare handful.
In short, I really dont think CCP should really focus too much on helping solo pvp consistently get fights. Frankly, thats the solo pvpers job, not CCPs. Theyre intentionally trying to fight with one arm behind their back, its supposed to be difficult. Its an MMO folks, one thats ruthless and claims to make losses hurt. It should always be more advantageous (and likely enjoyable) in that environment to bring a couple buddies.
-
I've always thought, as a pilot and an FC, that most people's views of "pvp" are rather limited. Getting the engagement, luring your opponent, finding ways to obtain a favorable tactical situation, this is what made pvp interesting to me, and all of that generally happened long before anyone pressed F1.
This is very true for EVE. The problem has always been plenty of people just want to run around in ships until combat happens, and EVE in its current incarnation favors the tactic of 90% pre-planning and 10% execution of plan.
I've always wanted Eve to do a straight up mass-participation "Arena" for capsuleers and small teams, with 'weight classes' and different sorts of things, and betting and all sorts of fun stuff.
-
I've always thought, as a pilot and an FC, that most people's views of "pvp" are rather limited. Getting the engagement, luring your opponent, finding ways to obtain a favorable tactical situation, this is what made pvp interesting to me, and all of that generally happened long before anyone pressed F1.
This is very true for EVE. The problem has always been plenty of people just want to run around in ships until combat happens, and EVE in its current incarnation favors the tactic of 90% pre-planning and 10% execution of plan.
I've always wanted Eve to do a straight up mass-participation "Arena" for capsuleers and small teams, with 'weight classes' and different sorts of things, and betting and all sorts of fun stuff.
Literally absolutely nothing stopping people from doing this given current mechanics. It just could be driven by players, not game mechanics or CCP. Could even be a cool thing IC.
-
I've always thought, as a pilot and an FC, that most people's views of "pvp" are rather limited. Getting the engagement, luring your opponent, finding ways to obtain a favorable tactical situation, this is what made pvp interesting to me, and all of that generally happened long before anyone pressed F1.
Mostly, I think of solo pvpers complaining about EVE mechanics making it hard to get fights pretty much like mission runners complaining about being war decced every once in awhile or freighter pilots complaining about suicide ganks: in short, theyre probably playing the wrong game for what they want.
I never thought of solo pvp as the height of EVE pvpdom, even when I did a bit of it. I'm much more interested in the interplay of pilots and various types of ships in small fleets and in engagements. (probably had the most fun in fleets under a dozen or so). Thats where EVE shines, imho, and frankly where I think EVE's focus should always be.
Being able to get interesting fights is a skill, probably the most important PVP skill. And it will always be a skill, one that needs to be learned and mastered, regardless of whatever game changes CCP might make. Altaen was simply brilliant at it, for instance, but a lot of EM's best pilots and FCs knew how and where to get consistent engagements whether their fleets were large or a bare handful.
In short, I really dont think CCP should really focus too much on helping solo pvp consistently get fights. Frankly, thats the solo pvpers job, not CCPs. Theyre intentionally trying to fight with one arm behind their back, its supposed to be difficult. Its an MMO folks, one thats ruthless and claims to make losses hurt. It should always be more advantageous (and likely enjoyable) in that environment to bring a couple buddies.
This. All of this. So very much.
-
Exactly, Gotti. And I'd agree - small gang is the most enjoyable mix for me, too, between individual pilot skill/responsibility/impact and FC/TC skill.
We've been collecting a fair bit of whin(g)ing in our time in FW, and it mostly resolves around "YOU SHIPPED UP YOU HAD NO SKILL" "YOU BROUGHT IN FRIENDS YOU HAVE NO SKILL" and it always comes from the same people who like to wait until they've got at least 50% more in numbers or superior ships if they have the chance. It's that, everyone does it, you use what you have at your disposa to win fightsl. You feign weakness to get a fight started, then you drop the hammer to swing odds (heavily) into your favour.
You don't go into a fight expending to lose, just to entertain your enemies. You take risks because you think it's worth it, or you welp your fleet in order to take down something more expensive.
When you solo you've got the same tools at your disposal. Let's talk about 'True solo' and disregard alts and you can still use an array of tactics to shift things into your favor. Fancy implants or drugs, fits that are good at control (and therefore disengaging if local spikes). No secret why many favor kiting ships or very fast hulls that can disengage when the excrement hits the ventilation. It's all about stacking the deck in your favor. Whether this is solo, small gang or big gang doesn't matter. EVE rewards winning, so you try to win. We've had gangs of 20+ GalMil pilots hopping into system, hugging together in one plex (bonus points when it's with the biggest ship class allowed in), crawing at the semi-random 10 Calmil guys in local that they're cowards for not bringing a fight. Yeah, about that. :p
-
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
-Sun Tsu, Art of War
-
I've always thought, as a pilot and an FC, that most people's views of "pvp" are rather limited. Getting the engagement, luring your opponent, finding ways to obtain a favorable tactical situation, this is what made pvp interesting to me, and all of that generally happened long before anyone pressed F1.
Mostly, I think of solo pvpers complaining about EVE mechanics making it hard to get fights pretty much like mission runners complaining about being war decced every once in awhile or freighter pilots complaining about suicide ganks: in short, theyre probably playing the wrong game for what they want.
I never thought of solo pvp as the height of EVE pvpdom, even when I did a bit of it. I'm much more interested in the interplay of pilots and various types of ships in small fleets and in engagements. (probably had the most fun in fleets under a dozen or so). Thats where EVE shines, imho, and frankly where I think EVE's focus should always be.
Being able to get interesting fights is a skill, probably the most important PVP skill. And it will always be a skill, one that needs to be learned and mastered, regardless of whatever game changes CCP might make. Altaen was simply brilliant at it, for instance, but a lot of EM's best pilots and FCs knew how and where to get consistent engagements whether their fleets were large or a bare handful.
In short, I really dont think CCP should really focus too much on helping solo pvp consistently get fights. Frankly, thats the solo pvpers job, not CCPs. Theyre intentionally trying to fight with one arm behind their back, its supposed to be difficult. Its an MMO folks, one thats ruthless and claims to make losses hurt. It should always be more advantageous (and likely enjoyable) in that environment to bring a couple buddies.
Your post reeks of YDIW, or at least "my way of playing the game is better than yours".
Well excuse me for being limited then. I could also say that I find people only focusing on luring one's opponent, finding ways to obtain a favorable tactical situation and so on, have a rather limited view as well, but I won't, it's just a different conception of pvp and having fun elsewhere. I happen to think that both can be fun, either that or combat, but combat actually isn't most of the time, and anyway barely happens in solo. It has been worse and worse over the years, and i'm not the only solo pvpers claiming it.
In my defense, I have had great, great fun as a FC, either small groups or 10-20 men fleets. I have had my successes and also evenings without anything. I have always appreciated the tactical appreciation and depth at this level. Even if very cold and rationally thinking, making me missing a lot of fights we could have maybe won or have had fun out of, it also made me and my fleets rather successful in most of our engagements. Just a FC among others, but I sure was able to get fights, or find them, or provoke them.
It doesn't work that way in solo.
And for having done solo pvp, I do think that tactical evaluation is rather limited. As I said above, either you fly the rock and the enemy flies scissors, or the opposite, or both the same cookie cutter shit. The same way, finding fights, luring enemies into traps, and all that so called tactical dimension is pretty dull and absent of that game in solo. It's mostly cats chasing mouses or mouses fleeing from cats, or worse, blobs. That's what you spend your time doing in solo pvp. Boring.
Of course Eve shines more in fleet pvp. So because of that and because it's what you prefer, Eve should focus on that only ? :roll:
Sorry to disagree. It's the game maker job to make a facet of their game interesting and playable. The job of the players only comes after. If you do not have that basis, then it's worthless.
-
I'm having no trouble in solo pvp, lately. Whether running about in my Pilgrief, Wolf, Cyclone, Hurricane or Loki. It's been a bad week for the alliance's killboard, but that notwithstanding, I'm having a lot of fun when I fly alone.
Even though these changes aren't in effect yet, I've taken a good hard look at the Sacrilege and will be buying one this week - for solo pvp before the changes and after. I'll also be buying a fleet Sacrilege for small gang work. Two seperate fitting theories at play there, and so separate rigs needed... thus, two hulls. Considering a second Loki for the same reason, tbh... an armored Loki might just be a good thing for me soon.
Anyway, yeah, solo not broken imo. It just requires patience - like everything else in EVE - and an enjoyment of the hunt itself.
-
The only problem with your post, Lyn, is that Solo and Gang and Fleet PvP don't exist in three different contexts. We're always meeting solo PvP'ers when we roam. Usually older pilots than me. Usually having spent more money on their fits.
Most of the time we beat them, because we fly a nice mix of ship types.
Oh, the tears in Local. OGBs suck. Numbers suck. TDs are OP. Caldari ships are OP. But it very rarely matters WHAT a wolfpack of five to ten ships brings to a solo ship fight - they're going to win.
-
I am not sure to see your point. The bane of solo pvp is a fleet trying to gank you - or more commonly called, blobs - but that's part of the game, there is not much that a solo pvper can do about that except trying to gtfo or die bravely with a few of them. It just happens to have grown bigger and bigger with time though. Blobs everywhere and all that.
-
The latest update on this. (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263720&find=unread)
I'll not quote it, because you're lazy if you can't be bothered to follow the link.
I especially like the Cerebrus (Caldari master race).
Edit: also Vagabond :eek:
-
The tears over the Vagabond's shield boost bonus make me laugh really really really hard.
"Guize we rolled the old bonus into the base stats and added a new bonus that is optional and doesn't force a fitting-meta change" ---> "OMG QQ Y U ASB ALL THE THINGS WHY CCP WHY"
:lol:
Seriously though - I haven't flown a Vagabond in forever in PVP, but beyond soloing I can't really think of a good scenario for the LASB Vagabond. In fleets I'd definitely still prefer the current dual LSE standard.
Happy with the other changes in general. I like the 50% MWD sig bloom role bonus, and I also like the other changes that were rolled in for sensor strength, lock range and cap recharge.
As for specific ships...
Sacrilege: Sad to see the Sac lose its cap regen bonus (because that was always hilarious with active-rep Sacs), but the range bonus is a good trade imo, especially with the addition of HMLs to the other missile bonus it has.
Zealot: This ship was already in pretty good shape balance-wise, so I'm cool with the lack of change here.
Cerberus: I like the addition of another launcher slot, though that utility high that's being used to replace it is pretty useful (we don't talk about Tristans and Cerbs, k). I'm not entirely sold on keeping the kinetic damage bonus, though.
Eagle: I've never actually flown an Eagle, but increased fitting, plus the changes to medium railguns, make this sound like it might be fun to try out sometime.
Deimos: I can't really express how glad I am to see the Deimos keeping its MWD cap penalty reduction bonus (the Thorax losing it as part of the first round of Tiericide made me very sad), though I will miss that utility highslot a bunch. On the other hand, the added midslot will mean that you can have dualprop and both a scram and a web on it if you go blasters, and this makes me very happy, because it was one of the annoying limitations of going dualprop with the Deimos.
Ishtar: Very happy with the changes here. The changed bonuses solidly put it into the droneboat category it belongs in as a Creodron ship, and make it an appetizing alternative to the Navy Vexor. Rolling the drone bay bonus into the base stats was also a very good idea; it was one bonus that always annoyed me with both the Ishkur and Ishtar. And of course, the increase to fitting, especially the CPU, has been needed since the dark ages of EVE. Just go look on omgrawr for further details. ;)
Vagabond: See above. I think the new shield boost bonus makes the Vagabond a much more attractive ship for soloing/small-gang while also not reducing the effectiveness of the current standard Vagabond fit in fleet use.
Muninn: I've never flown a Muninn, so I can't really say much here to these changes.
-
We wanted to get rid of the cap recharge bonus, as it is both kind of dated and strange, and also doesn't do much for a ship that doesn't even use cap for its main weapon system
Nevermind the fact it made the rest of the ships fittings, complete with perma runnable MWD+tackle w/ armor rep shenanigans quite feasible without cap injection.
I'm actually kinda annoyed at that. Forget being able to run across the field without worry of capping yourself out now.
-
That's what they call a change ? A few fixes here and there ? :roll:
-
Have been on holiday with no internet, will update OP as soon as I can be bothered.
-
OP Updated.
-
Deimos changes (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3453153#post3453153)
Alright guys, updated the OP with the Deimos changes.
Removed cap use for MWD bonus
Added Armor Repair amount bonus
Gave back a lot of base hp for armor and structure
Removed small amount of base shield hp
Improved base cap recharge to compensate some for MWD cap use bonus loss
The MWD cap use bonus earned the Deimos 4.5 cap per second, the new Deimos has a base cap recharge that is now 2.1 cap per second stronger than the old Deimos. Obviously this means the recharge is worse when MWDing than before, but the new recharge is useful when not MWDing as well. By adding armor and structure hp along with the new rep bonus, there should be plenty of support for Armor brawlers at all scales as well as the new options for shields afforded by the extra mid and rail buff.
Thanks guys - looking forward to 1.1!
OP updated with new stats.