Februrary Balance Update - Assault Frigates and Assault Damage Controls

pvp

(Katerina Farquhar) #21

Can be Assault Damage Control fited with Damage Control

I would assume not


(Makshima Shogo) #22

Sad that the auto shield jag is no more :’/ would have loved a 4th turret + fall off instead of opti but O well I guess it is what it is will keep trying it maybe its not as bad as it seems on sisi now.

The new cap bonus is great thou thanks for that.


(O2 jayjay) #23

Enyo, its been so long. I’m so happy we can be one again XOXOXOXO!


(Baali Tekitsu) #24

Good stuff, maybe increase the fitting on the wolf a bit aswell?
I used to love the arty wolf but it really cant compete anymore with so many good long range anti frigate options going around now.


(Makshima Shogo) #25

I think It’ might be better to lower power grid cost of small arties they are insane to fit on any ship.


(Stitch Kaneland) #26

I feel like the wolf would have been the better ship to convert into a missile platform. Then you could also change the muninn as they share the same manufacturers.

I will miss the scram kite arty jag… it was an amazing solo ship in null. Easy to get fights in. Please allow the wolf the same option and at least give it a 3rd mid (drop a high to a mid).


(Makshima Shogo) #27

Wolf has nice dps thou, if it had to become missile its dps would go down and then mini wouldn’t have a dps AF option, better to loose the jag and still have the wolf than loose both, but I agree on 3rd mid wolf doesn’t need a utility high, the jag already seems to be the utility ship of the 2.


(Stitch Kaneland) #28

Wolf dps is nice but it has no control. Also, fitting 4 280s on a wolf leaves you with no tank. Fitting 3 280s on a jag leaves room for an MSE and can do 180-210dps with utility to range control.

Arty isnt dps based but alpha based. You get 1k vollies with the jag which can punch through quite a few active tanks while scram kiting.


(Makshima Shogo) #29

Yea I see what you mean, I auto fit my kiting wolf thou with tracking comp and 2 fall off rigs and 400 plate seems decent although you have no point, but when people are blobbing you they don’t really look to see if they are pointed most of the time xD. Have had a lot of success with it so far on sisi.


really fun fit wish it had a 3rd mid for a point thou.


(Muon Farstrider) #30

I like the idea of changing the Jaguar into a missile ship as I’ve always loved rockets in particular and frigate sized missile platforms in general. However, I think this particular set of changes misses the mark in a few ways - namely, fitting, DPS, and speed.

First, unless it’s been changed in the latest SISI build, the Jaguar only got a 13% increase in speed rather than an 18%. In particular, it now has a lower max velocity and higher mass than its brother the Wolf, making it significantly slower overall. It was generally understood that the Jaguar’s previous status as the fastest assault frigate (by a significant margin) was a balancing factor for it having one less weapon (and hence much lower DPS) than the rest. However, since it gained the smallest speed boost of the AFs, it’s not the fastest AF anymore and the others have closed in on it significantly. So what is the counterbalancing advantage supposed to be for its (now even lower!) low damage now?

Second, the new Jaguar has very low DPS for an assault frigate. It already has one less turret than any other AF (except the Ishkur, which has 5 drones), missiles are a low DPS weapon system, and it lost a lowslot and has significantly tighter fitting than it used to making it harder to fit damage mods. This leads to it having quite poor DPS for an AF - for example, a Jaguar with a T2 ballistic control and a T2 fire rate rig will be dealing 158.5 DPS with rage rockets. Notably, a Breacher with a T2 ballistic control, a T1 fire rate rig, and two hobgoblins deals 155 DPS - in other words, the AF is doing no more damage than its T1 counterpart! This doesn’t seem right.

Finally, the new Jaguar has significant CPU fitting problems, as the +15 base CPU is not nearly enough to allow for the increased CPU usage of the modules it now needs to fit. For example, merely swapping out 200mm autocannons for rockets, the regular DCU for an ADCU, and swapping one gyrostabilizer for a ballistic control increases the CPU use by +33, where the ship only gained +18.75 CPU (after skills). Notably, this is even ignoring the increased CPU usage of shield boosters compared to extenders and the general higher CPU use of a midslot compared to a lowslot. The net effect of this is that most Jaguars will need one or even two CPU fitting modules (e.g. a dual MASB fit), where before they generally did not need them. This effectively removes slots from the ship, which negates much of the supposed advantages of the changes - e.g. needing to remove a speed mod for a fitting mod negating some of the speed buffs, or needing to remove a tank rig for a fitting rig negating some of the tank buffs.

In isolation, any of these three would not necessarily be too problematic. However, it seems to me to be unduely punishing for the new Jaguar to suffer from all three of these issues. I would offer the following suggestions for tweaks to the proposed Jaguar to address these issues:

Option 1: Increase fitting. This is probably the largest problem with the ship at present - if you didn’t need to fit two CPU modules to make a dual MASB fit work, or one CPU module to make a buffer fit work, it would be easier to compensate for the speed and DPS issues. I would suggest increasing the base CPU to 210 - an extra +25 beyond the current +15 for a total of +40. This will allow for the removal of one co-processor lowslot and remove the need to compact almost everything.

Option 2: Increase DPS. If the DPS were not so anemic, it would be much easier to accept the tight fitting and lower speed buff. I would suggest increasing the fire rate bonus from 5% to 7.5% per level, increasing the number of effective launchers from 5 to 6. This will allow most fits to suffer a significantly smaller decrease in damage compared to previous projecile fits, considering that most projectile fits could use one more damage mod than the missile fits can. (E.g. a 200mm autocannon fit with faction ammo, two gyros, and a t2 fire rate rig used to do 216 DPS. With the current proposal the example Jaguar with rage rockets, one bcu, and a t2 fire rate rig does 158.5 DPS - this would increase that to 190.2 DPS, or a deficit of 11% compared to the projectile fit instead of 27%.) (edit: as noted below, this should also include a small further cpu buff of around +5.)

Option 3: Rework into a split missile/projectile ship along the lines of the Scythe Fleet Issue. This is the most drastic of my suggestions, but it would allow addressing both the issues with the current Jaguar as well as the concerns of those who preferred the old projectile version. (It’s also my favorite of the three.) This suggestion would consist of giving the Jaguar both 3 launcher and 3 turret hardpoints, and the following set of bonuses:

Assault Frigates bonuses (per skill level):
5% bonus to Light Missile and Rocket Launcher explosion velocity
7.5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret tracking speed

Minmatar Frigate bonuses (per skill level):
10% bonus to Light Missile and Rocket Launcher and 7.5% bonus to Small Projecile Turret rate of fire
7.5% bonus to Shield Booster amount

This version of the ship allows those who preferred the projectile version to continue using it while addressing the issue of overlap with the Wolf through the shield boost bonus and focus on firerate rather than alpha, while also mitigating the issues with missile Jaguars. This would result in roughly equivalent performance with projectiles compared to the old projecile-fit Jaguars, with the same tracking and number of effective turrets and the +15 base CPU allowing for the changes to midslots. Meanwhile, the large missile fire rate bonus incorporates the increase to missile DPS suggested in option 2 (resulting in 6 effective launchers), addressing the issues that missile Jaguars face. This is also (in my opinion) an interesting and thematic way to approach the issue given the historic minmatar use of split weapon ships. (edit: as noted below, this should also include a small further cpu buff of around +5.)

edit: On further thought, options 2 and 3 should still include a modest CPU buff, probably around +5 (that is, 190 base cpu, a total of +20), mostly just to give the already-very-tight-fitting Jaguar a tiny bit of wiggle room for things like the ADCU. Compact modules are alright, but you shouldn’t have to compact that many things to get stuff to fit. (Seriously, go into the attribute overrides in pyfa and change the Jag’s slots/CPU and try to fit it up - it’s ugly.)


(Lugia3) #31

The ADCU is a terrible idea. AFs and HACs need actual balance changes, not a cheesy gimmick.

15 seconds of nigh invulnerability will be oppressive in frigate duels where fights rarely last a minute. Especially since AFs already tend to have high DPS compared to other frigates.

In fleet fights, the ADCU will be completely 110% useless. There are so many ways for an enemy FC to completely negate it’s effect.

If the enemy has enough alpha damage to instantly kill a HAC, people in the HAC fleet will have to activate their ADCU when they get yellowboxed to survive being one shot, so all the enemy FC has to do is broadcast people to mass yellowbox and then primary them 20 seconds later.

If the enemy does not have enough alpha damage to instakill a HAC, the HAC pilot can wait until he gets shot before activating his ADCU and catching reps. In which case, the enemy FC is just going to volley people to half armor and switch to somebody else without waiting to see if they catch reps. Then after a minute he’ll just go through all the people he already tagged and delete them without risk of their ADCU activating.

Still, none of those points address the fact that HACs just have low numbers compared to battlecruisers. They need more tank, speed, and range to be competitive in today’s meta.

Tl;dr the meta is still only going to be Machs and Feroxes. HACs still won’t get used, and anyone who wants to use one will be better off taking literally any other module in the game over an ADCU.


(Stitch Kaneland) #32

Since theyre basing it on the breacher, it would make sense to add drones to it to compensate. I dont much like doing it in that way, but it would keep it consistent with the breacher’s x2 drones. Maybe give it bandwidth for 3-4 drones


(Makshima Shogo) #33

@Suitonia Any chance of doing more vid’s after these come out on TQ will be interesting to see how you would change fits to accommodate the changes especially for the jag.


(NickSuccorso) #34

What happened to HACs? Adding a module does nothing. HACs have needed a hull/stats pass for years. CCP has passed over them for so many years in a row almost every HAC in the game has lost it’s niche to T1/Faction/T3 hull getting buffed in their respective balance passes.

If you guys are short on time (due too all the recent layoffs #ThanksFozzie) I could do it this weekend for you guys. Most of the changes are pretty obvious.


(NickSuccorso) #35

You are 100% right, they need a balance pass. They have been skipped over for way to many years!


(Makshima Shogo) #36

I’m just praying the muninn gets the missiles and not my lovely vaga : /, and 5th mid for vaga :slight_smile:


(ViolentDesire) #37

I disagree with the Jaguar changes. Minmatar are supposed to be versatile. You are forcing the Jag to be shield tanked. It becomes just another ship that is predictable, which isn’t a lot of fun. If this goes through, there would be four ships that can be fit in almost identical ways: Breacher, Hookbill, Hawk and now Jag.

If anything, the Jag should keep the 4/4 slot layout and the armor/shield HP should be made more even. Give it some other bonus instead of the shield boost.


(Rivr Luzade) #38

And how long can you use those turrets before you run out of capacitor? 5 cycles? 10?

With regards to the names of the ADC: Can you please find something else than FFR and EFFA? I appreciate the effort to finding unique names, but abbreviations are really lame, and EFFA and IFFA are way too similar. What about the old Pseudoelectron Containment field or the F85 ADC?


(Rivr Luzade) #39

How is this possible? You had 2 years. You had a dedicated balance team for a year. :thinking: Oh wait…


(Old Pervert) #40

He did say Black Ops, which I would expect would refer more to the actual battleships. That said, the quoted part kind of self-explains why a balance pass is needed. The battleships are basically just portable covert jump bridges at this point.