Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kalaratiri]

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=214280&find=unread

Hello gentlepilots! It's once again time to start soliciting feedback on more ship balance changes! We'll be starting off our Summer lineup gently with some proposed tweaks to a few of the previously adjusted T1 frigates and a change to the Naglfar that was frankly a long time coming (and that I didn't want to create a whole new sticky for).

Naglfar
I'll start us off with the Nag change. Many of you know that in the past CCP has expressed a desire to remove the outdated and very annoying split weapon systems on the Naglfar Dreadnaught, but that fitting a third capital turret on the hull was too problematic and held up the idea. Instead of requiring a complete redesign of the classic Naglfar hull to do our rebalancing, or waiting until our comprehensive Dread rebalance to touch this most glaring flaw, CCP Ytterbium decided that we'd get the job done using the tools available to us.

So we're removing both the two launcher hardpoints from the Nag (and two highs), and replacing them with a fixed +50% Capital Projectile Weapon damage role bonus that puts the two-turreted Nag on roughly equal footing with its three turret peers. We're also removing some fitting to compansate for no longer needing the launchers fitted (although in practice this is fairly insignificant). You can expect us to swap the capital launchers for capital turrets in the build requirements at some point soonish (same way as we did for the Ragnarok) but I unfortunately cannot guarantee that the build requirement changes will happen at exactly the same time as the ship stat and bonus changes.

Full Naglfar changes are:
New Fixed Role Bonus: +50% Capital Projectile Weapon Damage
-2 High Slots
-2 Launcher Slots
-144000 Powergrid
-180 CPU

Frigates
And onwards to the frigate tweaks! Overall we're very happy with how the frigate changes have worked out so far. The gap between the best and worst frigates is massively smaller than it was pre-Inferno. Although it will take more time to fully see these ships settle into the metagame, there are some small changes we can make in the medium-term to help smooth out a few rough edges.

Some of you will notice that there are certain imbalances that these changes do not fully rectify (for instance the current strength of light missile speed fits, the slight relative weakness of the Rifter, Breacher and the solo Punisher). We're hoping to smooth out a few of the rough edges via stat changes to the ships themselves, while some others will be addressed via changes to other parts of the metagame.

Summary:

EXECUTIONER:
+50 Armor

TORMENTOR:
+1 PWG
+50 Armor
+25 Capacitor
+12.5 Cap Recharge Time
Cap/s unchanged
+15 Velocity
+0.05 Agility
-100000 Mass
-0.24s Align time

PUNISHER:
-25 Capacitor
-32.5s Cap Recharge Time
+0.222 Cap/s

KESTREL:
+50 Hull

TRISTAN:
+15 Veloity
-150000 Mass
-0.48s Align time

RIFTER:
+50 Armor

BREACHER:
+50 Hull


Entire ship stats:

EXECUTIONER:
Frigate skill bonuses: -10% to small energy turret capacitor use and +5% small energy turret damage per level
Role bonus: 80% reduction in Propulsion Jamming systems activation cost
Slot layout: 4H, 3M, 3L; 3 turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 45 PWG, 140 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 250 / 450 (+50) / 350
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 360 / 180 s / 2
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 410 / 2.85 / 1090000 / 2.91s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / scan resolution / max locked targets): 27.5km / 920 / 4
Sensor strength: 8 Radar
Signature radius: 31
Cargo capacity: 115

TORMENTOR:
Frigate skill bonuses: +5% to small energy turret damage and -10% to small energy turret capacitor use per level
Slot layout: 3H, 3M, 4L; 3 turrets, 0 launchers.
Fittings: 50 (+1) PWG, 130 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 350 / 500 (+50) / 400
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 425 (+25) / 212.5 s (+12.5) / 2
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 335 (+15) / 3.1 (+0.05) / 1080000 (-100000) / 3.13 s (-0.24)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 40km / 620 / 4
Sensor strength: 9 Radar
Signature radius: 35

PUNISHER:
Frigate skill bonuses: 5% bonus to Small Energy Turret damage and 5% bonus to armor resistances per skill level
Slot layout: 4H, 2M, 4L; 3 turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 55 PWG, 124 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 350 / 500 / 450
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 400 (-25) / 180 s (-32.5s) / 2.222 (+0.222)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 330 / 3.35 / 1047000 / 3.28 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 25km / 640 / 4
Sensor strength: 9 Radar
Signature radius: 37

KESTREL:
Caldari Frigate bonuses: +5% to missile damage and +10% to missile velocity per level
Slot layout: 4H, 4M, 2L; 0 turrets, 4 launchers
Fittings: 45 PWG, 180 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 500 / 350 / 400 (+50)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 330 / 165 s / 2
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 320 / 3.27 / 1163000 / 3.56 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 620 / 5
Sensor strength: 11 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 38

TRISTAN:
Gallente Frigate bonuses: +7.5% to small hybrid turret tracking and +10% to drone tracking and hitpoints per level
Slot layout: 3H, 3M, 3L; 2 turrets, 0 launchers
Fittings: 35 PWG, 130 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 350 / 450 / 650
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 350 / 175 s / 2
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 325 (+15) / 3.44 / 956000 (-150000) / 3.08 s (-0.48)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 40
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 40km / 600 / 5
Sensor strength: 9 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 41

RIFTER:
Frigate skill bonuses: +5% to small projectile turret damage and +7.5% to small projectile turret tracking per level
Slot layout: 4H, 3M, 3L; 3 turrets, 2 launchers
Fittings: 37 PWG, 125 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 450 / 450 (+50) / 350
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 250 / 125 s / 2
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 355 / 3.19 / 1067000 / 3.19 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 0 / 0
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 22.5km / 660 / 4
Sensor strength: 8 Ladar
Signature radius: 35

BREACHER:
Minmatar Frigate bonuses: +5% missile damage and +7.5% shield boost amount per level
Slot layout: 3H, 4M, 3L; 0 turrets, 3 launchers
Fittings: 35 PWG, 180 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull): 500 / 350 / 350 (+50)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / cap per second): 300 / 150 s / 2
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 350 s / 3.16 / 1087000 / 3.21 s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 10 / 10
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 35km / 650 / 4
Sensor strength: 8 Ladar
Signature radius: 36

[Lyn Farel]

I am not happy with the removal of the launchers for the naglfar.

For a logical step after the changes made to the hybrid (proj/missiles) minmatar ships like the cyclone or the typhoon, I can see where it came from, but I do not see the actual logic behind. Almost nobody fitted a typhoon with projectiles added to the launchers, they usually prefer to use energy destabilizers. For the cyclone, it did not benefited a lot from all the missiles since they did not have an actual bonus for them. Like the naglfar, true, but in the case of the naglfar it still had 4 weapons instead of 3 like the other dreads, so it compensated for the loss of bonus on the launchers. I made the calculation and the damage output is roughly the same before changes and after changes if I am not mistaken.

So, the only thing that makes me say they did this is a problem of skills for the guns. Ok, fair enough.

But I still lose the opportunity to fit artillery AND torps. Maybe I was doing it wrong but I had a fit like this, since citadel torps can go quite far (over 50 km) without losing too much dps, unlike ACs. So now, that kind of fit actually loses in DPS after changes.

And also, I will miss all these little torps... Not that I have a lot of use for my dread anyway...

[kalaratiri]

My favorite comment so far:

That Naglfar change could change the entire landscape of 0.0.

With these changes, a Arty Naglfar can alpha up to 90.000 depending on skills/fit.

With 277 Naglfars, you'll alpha a supercarrier every 19 seconds.....(+tidi factor!)
(calculating with 25m EHP per super carrier)

Before you needed 416 Naglfars, but could add 2 large smartbombs to them, so they were untouchable by fighter bombers.
(832 large smarties will destroy fighterbombers pretty fast...) Now you need a dedicated firewall against the fighter bombers, so the fight will not be completly one-sided.
There is a fighting chance for both sides, and the sup-capital part of the fight will win/loose the fight.

[Ghost Hunter]

I'm generally displeased they decided to remove another citadel missile platform. At the capital level it seems nothing using missiles has remote viability. I can't really recall seeing significant usage of Phoenixes or even a Leviathan for combat.

[kalaratiri]

I've seen Phoenixes dropped on people before (by I-RED nonetheless) and Leviathans theoretically have the best dps of any titan (against stationary objects). Citadel torps have been relegated to hitting other dreadnoughts and structures, but due to the prevalence of blap dreads already, I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.

[Vincent Pryce]

WTT: Moros for a Naglfar

I want the Stick of Deth now.

[Lyn Farel]

I'm keeping my 1,2B Stick of Deth kthx.

Even without the launchers. 

[Vincent Pryce]

2,4bil + fit arounds these days

[Lyn Farel]

But if you keep your giant magic lamp and rub it you might summon back the Kyber...

.-.

[Saede Riordan]

You know what I'd like CCP to do instead of getting rid of split weapon ships?

Make split weapon ships actually decent and viable.

While we're at it, how about some off-racial weapons? laser using minmatar ships, etc?

[DeadRow]

problem with split weapons systems is that they are never going to be as viable as a single weapon system.

Having utility slots that you can use a secondary weapon on? Sure
Having bonus' for two different weapons? I'm good thanks

Finally got around to sorting out the nag, maybe now they can look at citadel missile systems so I can put Nicole into a Pheonix

[Saede Riordan]

To really be 'fair' a split weapon ship would have one damage bonus split into two, to go to each weapon system, instead of 'using up' another bonus. But that will never happen because it would mean ships wouldn't have the same number of bonuses.

[Ghost Hunter]

problem with split weapons systems is that they are never going to be as viable as a single weapon system.

Having utility slots that you can use a secondary weapon on? Sure
Having bonus' for two different weapons? I'm good thanks

Finally got around to sorting out the nag, maybe now they can look at citadel missile systems so I can put Nicole into a Pheonix

My preferred argument for split weapon ships was that they always had more emphasis for tank and versatility over raw damage and efficiency. The old Khanid and Sansha ships were great for this - they didn't always have competitive DPS, but they were better equipped to answer different threats than other ships. This is one of the big reasons why I miss them so much - their old potential was much more vast in its scope than the 'improved' iteration ever could be.

Relative to the Khanid and Sansha ships, some split weapon ships didn't emphasize this innate difference well enough. Some, like the Ares, straight up replaced their 'DPS focused' equivalents. The Naglfar is a good example of a mixed weapon ship that wasn't fitting for the bracket it was put in.

[kalaratiri]

Brief update: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2763283#post2763283

Good morning guys, as always thanks for the feedback and comments. I'm going to go over a few questions from the thread so far and then I have one small update to the plan.

Why are we talking about the Nag but not the problems with citadel missiles?
This change obviously does not fix all the dreadnaught balance, and we have never claimed that it does. Citadel missiles are much more limited in application than capital turrets, and that is a problem that we do intend to solve. However this Nag change is what we have ready to announce at this very moment.


Does this Nag change mean that your artists are all lazy?
No, it just means that we are endeavoring to make best use of the time we have available. Our art team has numerous requests for updates and new assets for each expansion, as well as their schedule for updating ship models into improved versions. They are over there making cool stuff for you all, believe me.

Ok ok, I will admit that CCP BunnyVirus is pretty lazy, but the rest of the team works really hard.


Why give the Tormentor more grid? Wouldn't CPU be more valuable?
Yes indeed. A CPU increase would have been a bigger buff to the Tormentor than the +1 PWG is. However we are using the mass change as the main method of helping the Tormentor with this plan, and the +1 grid is primarily a small change to help make the common SAR+200mm and Focused Pulses setup less reliant on the Advanced Weapon Upgrades skill for newer players.


Why does the Merlin have so much lockrange? (originally from the other thread)
In this case the lockrange advantage of the Merlin and Kestrel was not designed primarily to help with long range weapons (although that's a big plus for the Kestrel) but because we tend to build lockrange advantages into the Caldari race as part of their racial flavour and to help them counter their enemy ewar (sensor damps). The fact that those two ships are a bit more resistant to damps is not an accident.

and immediately below that: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2763304#post2763304

And for the quick update to the plan, we are looking at adding 1 Powergrid to the Rifter in this pass. Let us know what you think.

[BloodBird]

Unfortunate take-away: It's cool to have Caldari ships naturally resistant to dampeners, but where are my Fed ships with naturally high jamming resists?