Hmmm… what’s the issue with combat ceptors? I mean the point of having a COMBAT ceptor is for it to do DPS. For example, our scout sees a pod. If he was in a regular ceptor he would have had to tackle the pod for a long time until his fleet arrived. If he was a combat ceptor he could have shot the pod.
At least I think that’s what combat ceptors are made for. Problem is, if your dps is so low you need 200 more dps from your ceptor, your fleet comp is not for PVP in the first place. Combat ceptors need a revamp of its usage. One is used for scouting (hence the bubble immunity) and knowing whether there’s like a gatecamp or something, and could do regular intercepting nicely, but combat interceptors are for intercepting only, with a lower warp speed but a higher subwarp speed, afterburner bonuses, high immunity to stasis webifiers and low signature. and better local reps. They’re to scram the target while going 2km/s in an afterburner, but not have the instawarp ability.
It’s not about which ship would fit that bonus the most.
It’s about how to make a line of ship have its own defining traits, and usage.
The % hp was because CCP just recently added this kind of bonus to fleet command BC, making them more relevant in fleets since they can sustain fire until reps land.
50% cap warfare resist means, just like if you fit 2 thukker cap batteries, you need twice the amount of neuts to have the same effect.
There is no “without neuts”, but instead “with half the neuts”. But maybe half is too strong already.
For the “anti bubble part” I was thinking of fleet inties can go through them, combat inty would be able to dispatch them - basically counter waterboarding. IMO fleet inties would be the one you want to hunt, and combat inties the ones you want to secure your progression. That’s another vision from the fast/hard tackle dichotomy : tactical root/dispel. Though as I propose the idea I’m pretty sure it would be abusable.
That would be a very strong bonus. You don’t just get to put two batteries on a PvP ship like that. Also, a neutralizer resistance bonus that large would close the large ship escape window, which is that little sliver of time you have between the neutralizer hitting, and the tackler being able to activate its modules again. So now, a tackler getting hold of a large ship would mean it’s impossible to escape unless the tackler is killed, without the tackler having to sacrifice some utility in order to reinforce its capacitor resilience via injectors, nos, et cetera. For example, a tackler with an injector is likely sacrificing its webifier, and a tackler that uses nos needs to get close enough to the enemy that it’s exposed to things like grapplers, smart bombs, and much better drone damage application.
Out of the many changes proposed in this thread, this one would be the most disruptive.
How about making them into something like the attack battlecruisers? Give them the ability to fit medium guns. They can be used to counter larger ships but almost any frigate or destroyer class would counter them. To help with EHP and such they could given a role bonus to armor plates/ shield extenders to give them a bit more EHP similar to supers or titans. This will give them a role that does not interfere with assault frigs, but lets them be viable again. What are your thoughts on this?
If combat interceptors weren’t so lazy or useless, they wouldn’t be homeless. They should educate themselves. Are you suggesting there is something wrong with the system?
Yes, but they also cost two slots and a whole lot of fitting. Neutralizer resistance would confer the primary benefit for this use case scenario, while the cap bonus won’t be missed because it’s not really needed for interceptors anyway.
I don’t have a problem with buffs. In fact, there are lots of good ideas in this thread, including your own, but this one goes beyond resilience, and into total immunity territory.
But not as close as your small nos, or an enemy’s large smartbomb, or the range at which drones can hit you without burning.
I’ve done quite a bit of “danger zone” kiting in assault frigs, which are like my favorite ship type, and it already seems brutally efficient against larger ships. Hitting orbit at 5, and winding up at around 8.5-ish, makes you almost invincible in a solo engagement.
STILL you comparison with ships fitting two cap batteries is off.
No it does not. 50% resistance to cap warfare is not immunity. Stop saying BS, your exaggerations don’t help your case.
Instead of being neuted in 2 cycles you will be in 4. You will still be neuted fast.
And I’m totally against giving flat buff that makes it better than other ships in all situations. That’s why a defining role, that is a situation where the ship is better while being worse in the general case, is what I am looking for. Because t2 are supposed to be “specialization”, not “OMGWTFPWNMOBILE”, so making the inty compete with other ships in the general role seems a bad idea to me.
What ? yes, scram makes you need to be in drones range since you can’t orbit fast else you lose point. and also, yes you are in range of small nos. (though deep in falloff, it’s enough to feed the scram with the inty bonus)
And AGAIN, you are focusing on numbers, which is the last pass of the balance. First we need to find correct use case of the ship, so the numbers (50% in that case ) are IRRELEVANT. Stop complaining about irrelevant things.
The question you should answer is : does that role makes sense ? Does it make another ship obsolete ? In which case, it means the idea is bad. But the numbers ? They are just a representation, because some people NEED numbers to have an idea - even though those numbers are not relevant. I could have given “X” instead.
It’s not about being neutralized “fast” in this case, but about having exactly one shot to screw up the tackle and escape.
Ships generally don’t start a fight with full capacitors. A single heavy neutralizer absolutely caps out a tackler frigate in one shot today. The next shot is over 20 seconds away, which might as well be forever, because by that time, everything else will have arrived on the grid.
With a 50% resistance, a heavy neutralizer will no longer cap out a tackler in one shot, unless that tackler was already missing a huge chunk of its capacitor. When combined with the fast velocity, lock speed, and warp speed, the ship’s ability to tackle will be absolute.
It’s not a literal immunity, but a practical one.
The closer you are in a small ship to a large one, the more vulnerable you are, assuming that direct fire weapons won’t apply much, if any, damage at any range. Kiting at the edge of scrambler range almost always results in more survivability. As such, being required to close the distance in order to use small nos has a drawback. With a large neutralizer resistance bonus, this might no longer be necessary.
You provided that number, so that’s what I was going by. You said that that’s what you think they should get. Why would I assume that’s irrelevant, and not take it at face value?
10% per level in interceptor to energy warfare resilience.
5% per level in interceptor to armor and shield resistance, as well as AF-level T2 resists.
And that’s exactly what I was addressing. If you bring my reading comprehension into question based on my response to what you wrote, I’m sorry, but we’re at an impasse.
And that quote is taken from a context in which Iisted OTHER ideas.
Also I started the post by
so YES I am talking about ROLES and in that case the IDEA of the ship is more relevant than the actual NUMBERS.
as I wrote, I could have written X% it would be the same.
I tell you because that’s something you seem to not be able to realize : the general idea is more important than the actual numbers. It’s easier to tweak numbers later than to redesign the whole system, because the original design was lacking in insight and made a line of ships shadowed by another.
I don’t give a ■■■■ about your idea that this specific number is too high. I don’t even think my ideas are good to start with. I’m just bringing brain food to make the combat inties relevant while not being plainly better than another class, which are two common pitfalls for this kind of discussion.
If this idea (the roles) is actually considered (which I don’t even hope it will), THEN balancing numbers will be relevant. But NOT NOW. NOW, the issue is that inties don’t have a defining role.
It’s like we are missing a RR in a fleet and you are arguing that the RR should use compact or enduring, without knowing his skills.
Great! But I was addressing that specific one (after admitting that the rest were pretty solid, mind you).
It seems like you can’t take any criticism or objection whatsoever, no matter how polite it is. Note how I respond to people in post 39, or 51, for example.
I would recommend taking a quick step back from all of this, and thinking the situation through to realize that someone who finds fault with a part of your argument or proposal is not your enemy.
I tell you that your answer is out of topic. You are answering to details, that are completely irrelevant to the idea I proposed. I tell you what you misunderstood and you keep repeating “not that’s what you meant”. NO, you are WRONG.
Basically, it is a personal attack on an arguer that brings the individuals’s personal circumstances, trustworthiness, or character into question.
go educate yourself.
You are derailing the thread with off-topic considerations. When I told you that those numbers were a detail, I was not asking your opinion. I was telling you, that your post is off-topic.
