Features & Ideas Discussion

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

23 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

[Odyssey] T1 Frigate Polish Pass and Naglfar fix

Jump to first DEV post
Author
C C P Alliance
#1 Posted: 2013.03.11 13:18  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
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 Many of you know that in the past CCP has expressed a desire to remove the outdated and very annoying split weapon systems on the Naglfar Dreadnaught, but that fitting a third capital turret on the hull was too problematic and held up the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:
+1 PWG
+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: 38 PWG (+1), 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
The Mockers AO
#2 Posted: 2013.03.11 13:38
Quick Naglfar Comments ::

Ok, so you still get the double dps bonus for the Nag hull, correct?

On a separate note on the Nag...

There was a fringe case using the Naglfar, because it had 5 high slots... and that the launchers weren't actually bonused... you could drop one launcher, and lets say... use a Neut, or a NOS or something else.

Would you be interested in doing -1 high slot, and leaving the utility slot on the Naglfar - something that Minmatar hulls do have a tendency of having anyways?

Where I am.
Tactical Narcotics Team
#3 Posted: 2013.03.11 13:41  |  Edited by: Imperium Romanus
Excellent - room for a covert cyno now on the Nag :D

No need for a siege module!
Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
#4 Posted: 2013.03.11 13:41  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
My first comment was driven by the thought that the nag was having to trade one of it's bonuses for the 50% turret modifier. It may be helpful to provide the full ship stats like you did for frigs.

Other wise as a retired Nag pilot I rather like the change, still I would not say she would be on equal footing with the Moros but at least closer. More importantly the skill set required is closer at least to use the Nag compared to the other dreads, though a little late for me on that part *smirks*.
C C P Alliance
#5 Posted: 2013.03.11 13:41
Bloodpetal wrote:
Quick Naglfar Comments ::

Ok, so you still get the double dps bonus for the Nag hull, correct?

On a separate note on the Nag...

There was a fringe case using the Naglfar, because it had 5 high slots... and that the launchers weren't actually bonused... you could drop one launcher, and lets say... use a Neut, or a NOS or something else.

Would you be interested in doing -1 high slot, and leaving the utility slot on the Naglfar - something that Minmatar hulls do have a tendency of having anyways?



Yes to the double damage bonus, the skill bonuses are not changing.

As for the utility high, we think the ship will be quite competitive with the three highs and the damage bonus. We did consider leaving a utility high on it but decided to keep it more in line with its peers.
The Kadeshi
#6 Posted: 2013.03.11 13:43
What about the Moros doing a ton more DPS than the others?
Goonswarm Federation
#7 Posted: 2013.03.11 13:57
Madracoon wrote:
What about the Moros doing a ton more DPS than the others?

Because blasters?
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#8 Posted: 2013.03.11 13:57  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
What about the Phoenix's split weapon system? It can only use a single unbonused turret - it has to jam pointless citadel launchers into the other two highslots.
RAZOR Alliance
#9 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:00
For the Naglfar could you consider biasing the armor/shields towards armor and/or adding an additional low slot.

I ask this because it cannot have escaped your notice that shield capitals in pvp are on the verge of going the way of the dodo - probably already deceased in your former alma mater. There are enough pilots and ships to impose doctrines to this - and as armor based capitals have had the best stats (armor and damage versus shield and ????) the doctrine will be armor based. The current best use for a Nidhoggur is in triage, repping a POS.

A Naglfar without an armor tank will be as welcome in a capital fleet as a Mael would be in an Abbadon fleet irrespective of the changes you are making here.
No Holes Barred
#10 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:05
Gypsio III wrote:
What about the Phoenix's split weapon system? It can only use a single unbonused turret - it has to jam pointless citadel launchers into the other two highslots.



Citadel Torps are amazing at anti-structure and anti-capital warfare. They just suck for blapping.
The Kadeshi
#11 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:14
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Madracoon wrote:
What about the Moros doing a ton more DPS than the others?

Because blasters?

The capital turrets are all pretty balanced. They don't really have a short range like the sub cap blasters so the extra DPS isn't making up for much.
Pandemic Legion
#12 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:16
give the nag one more low and remove a mid or 2 so we can armor tank it :D

Its good that you remove the torps btw
#13 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:20
I don't have anything to comment about frigate changes, but the way you fixed the issue with Naglfar seems like just hiding stuff under the carpet to me. Of course, it would be perfect if Naglfar had 3 turret slot like all other dreads. Are your graphical designers too lazy to change the ship's model to accomodate this? But you changed the Megathron model some time ago, even though it wasn't an ugly ship.

However, I wouldn't mind having split weapon systems on Naglfar it if its launcher slots had any bonus, in that case I would change ship's bonuses to this:

10% to capital projectile turret damage (or rate of fire) per level
10% to citadel missile explosion velocity per level

Also, siege module should have its penalty to explosion velocity removed. You already did the same with tracking. Penalties to scan resolution and number of lockable targets are also rather annoying.

On a related note, capital turrets have rather pathetic sounds, way underwhelming for such devastating weapons of mass destruction.
Highsec is for casuals.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#14 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:26  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Robert Harrison wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
What about the Phoenix's split weapon system? It can only use a single unbonused turret - it has to jam pointless citadel launchers into the other two highslots.


Citadel Torps are amazing at anti-structure and anti-capital warfare. They just suck for blapping.


While they're certainly usable there, do they have any serious advantage over turrets in the anti-structure/capital roles? Because if not, then there's no reason to use them instead of turrets, which also work fine in those roles (hence my cunning edit from "useless" to "pointless"). Selectable damage could be an advantage, but the Phoenix is constrained by the kinetic-only bonus.

Also regarding Naglfar lowslots - I don't think the solution to problems of shield caps involves removing them.
Defiant Legacy
#15 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:27
Quote:
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.


Now see, without a glimpse into these meta changes I can hardly comment on the frig changes, except that the rifter needs more of your love.
The Mockers AO
#16 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:30  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Your fix for the Breacher is adding hull? Straight

The fitting is so tight on a lot of the higher end fits, that running a damage control is almost not an option, so adding hull doesn't really enhance your survival that much at all.

It seems that in order to not make the minmatar ships "compete" with the caldari missile boats, you're shaving them back way too much honestly. I see this happen in many ways for the Breacher, Talwar, Bellicose and Claymore. I get that they're not supposed to be the "king" of it... but, seriously, they will always be glossed over as you move them forward in favor of Caldari unless you really find a space for them on the battlefield.

And hull isn't going to make that happen.

The real issue for the Breacher at the moment is that the Medium Ancillary Shield booster is the only REAL answer for a tank using the shield bonus on it, and because the ASB's last rebalance really didn't "fix" the ASB (and broke it in ways expected)... Running 1 MASB Should be enough for ONE FIGHT for a Solo breacher, but instead it's not quite good enough. So you're forced to run 2 MASB's, which really makes it hard to fit a creative setup on a Breacher to survive and use that shield bonus. (i.e. scram, web, MASB, AB, kite short range at 8km from turret boats, and hope to survive).

IMHO, fix ASB's = fix Breacher.
Add Navy Cap Booster 50's = Fix Breacher

To highlight the situation... We've been running Kite Kestrels in packs of 10 lately. And early on, one person asked me, "how about we make a breacher version? and I went... "Meh" I'm a huge MInmatar fan. But, immediately, the Breacher is going to be left in the dust with the Kestrel pack.

So, Lets compare the Breacher to the Caldari sibling, the Kestrel.

If I take almost exactly similar kite fits, minus one launcher... and +1 low slot.

At max skills, The Breacher has about 13 less powergrid than the kestrel... obviously this is to account for the fact it has one less launcher... however the irony is I end up being 3 powergrid short to fit a similar fit to the Kestrel. So, inevitably, the two / rig Low slots which SHOULD BE GOING to make a unique creative setup for the Breacher, end up being forced to be fitting modules. So, ok, you say :: Well, we don't want the breacher to be "another kestrel". Fine.

Then, why does a Breacher with an MASB vs a Kestrel with an MASB only get (According to EFT) an unimpressive 20 effective repair better, and how does that make it tactically more viable?


It doesn't add anything. It can't shoot as far, about half its DPS damage comes from its drone damage, but inevitably insignificant in the Alpha volley environment. It will get swarmed when we go up against packs of 30+ frigates which we try and target if we make it a "short range brawly interceptor to save a kestrel" fit.

The only way I'd roll a Breacher kite fleet is if we get enough of them that we have about 20+ warrior II's that could swarm one target while we take another one out with alpha. But, the fitting is so grossly tight on CPU and Powergrid, I'd struggle to get the locking range, the damage projection and the EWAR in place to make me comfortable with it.

I'm going to try a Breacher Kite fleet this week and get back to you on that one. However... I really think you need to tweak a few of the decisions on fitting ability a tiny bit more.



If I remember, didn't the T1 Minmatar ships shields used to get a SLIGHT EM resist of like 5-10%? Whatever happened to that? Or am I delusional?
Where I am.
Goonswarm Federation
#17 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:31
Luscius Uta wrote:
I don't have anything to comment about frigate changes, but the way you fixed the issue with Naglfar seems like just hiding stuff under the carpet to me. Of course, it would be perfect if Naglfar had 3 turret slot like all other dreads. Are your graphical designers too lazy to change the ship's model to accomodate this? But you changed the Megathron model some time ago, even though it wasn't an ugly ship.

Someone like you says it would be nice if there were a third turret because of the graphics.
A Naglfar pilot says "SWEET! My guns work better and only require half the ammo as before!"
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#18 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:33
Bloodpetal wrote:
If I remember, didn't the T1 Minmatar ships shields used to get a SLIGHT EM resist of like 5-10%? Whatever happened to that? Or am I delusional?



You're delusional I'm afraid. Smile The racial resist thingy on T1 ships only ever applied to armour resists, not shields.
Pandemic Legion
#19 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:41  |  Edited by: Bagehi
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
For the Naglfar could you consider biasing the armor/shields towards armor and/or adding an additional low slot.

I ask this because it cannot have escaped your notice that shield capitals in pvp are on the verge of going the way of the dodo - probably already deceased in your former alma mater. There are enough pilots and ships to impose doctrines to this - and as armor based capitals have had the best stats (armor and damage versus shield and ????) the doctrine will be armor based. The current best use for a Nidhoggur is in triage, repping a POS.

A Naglfar without an armor tank will be as welcome in a capital fleet as a Mael would be in an Abbadon fleet irrespective of the changes you are making here.


Shield capitals are going the way of the dodo because the ships' weapons are bad. It has nothing to do with the tank. Nag isn't used much because of the horrible split weapon, Phoenix is rarely used because good luck hitting anything with citadel missiles. Fix those two issues and people will use them again (let's not forget the Phoenix fleets of old).

Rolling out a collection of tier 2 dreads with the alternate weapon system for each race would likely even things up with the tank preferences for cap fleets.
Amarr Empire
#20 Posted: 2013.03.11 14:42
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Yes to the double damage bonus, the skill bonuses are not changing.

As for the utility high, we think the ship will be quite competitive with the three highs and the damage bonus. We did consider leaving a utility high on it but decided to keep it more in line with its peers.



Hmm do you mean the

Incoming 5% ROF 5% dmg of Nag? : http://serpentinelogic.wordpress.com/author/serpentinelogic/


Okay so

New Nag: 5% ROF 5% dmg per level

Current Moros: 5% ROF 5% dmg per level

Current Revelation: 10% cap 5% dmg per level


Would Moros and Nag out-dps Rev a little bit too much?
How about give Reva fixed bonus (-40% or -50% cap usage), and 5% ROF 5% dmg per level as well?
or 10% cap 7.5%~10%dmg per level? (ROF is little better than flat dmg, right?)

Me no dread pilot though.
23 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump