open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Faction test feedback
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

CCP WeirdFish

Posted - 2009.08.29 20:00:00 - [1]
 

Howdy folks,

Just to clarify the events you did helped us gather server data, the balance testing is up to you to do whenever you wish now that you have the ships, please let us know when you have tryed them out.

First allow me to extend our gratitude for all those who participated in the tests. At this point we want to collect your feedback and some general information.
If you participated in either of the tests; please reply to this thread with the following:


  • Which test you were in: (ex. March 6 @ 19:00)

  • OS version (XP, Vista 64bit, OS X, Linux - Fedora, etc.)

  • CPU (ex. AMD X2 6000+, Intel E6400, etc)

  • GPU (ex. ATI 2950, Nvidia 8800, etc)

  • RAM (ex. 2GB, 4GB, etc.)

  • Average FPS during the test(s)

  • Did you have Audio enabled?

  • Did you have brackets turned on?

  • Did you use 'optimize settings'? If so, which one did you use?

  • On a scale of 1-10, how would you compare FPS and performance between this test and TQ? (1=way worse, 5=same as TQ, 10=OMG this is awesome)

  • Describe your experience, make comments, suggestions, etc.




Finlay did you have fun and will you be attending tests in the future?

If you encounterd any spesific issues please write up a bug report at.

http://bugs.eve-online.com

Siigari Kitawa
Gallente
Perditus Peregrinus
Posted - 2009.08.29 20:03:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Siigari Kitawa on 29/08/2009 20:11:08

So when do you ask us how we felt about the balance of the faction ships we flew?

edit: to be somewhat helpful

I feel that I wasted 3 hours, really. I logged in expecting to be asked "how do you like this fit" and "do you think this coudl work" and "how is the grid/cpu" on your fits?

Instead I was warped into a blob with my TECH 2 FITTED VINDICATOR (good luck with that, I had 2 ANP and Electrons fitted because I was screwed for CPU) and told to shoot a titan. As soon as I warped my computer turned into a 3 minute slideshow delay with a 0.5 FPS response.

No lag, just lame.

I want my 3 hours back :(



edit 2: just because I care about EVE

# Which test you were in: August 29, 1800

# OS version: Vista x86

# CPU: AMD Barton 2600+ SSE 3DNow! etc

# GPU: Nvidia Ultra 6800 AGP

# RAM: 2 GB

# Average FPS during the test(s): none, less than 1

# Did you have Audio enabled?: Yes

# Did you have brackets turned on?: Brackets disabled per request

# Did you use 'optimize settings'? If so, which one did you use?: Yes, No HDR, Shadows on, High everything

# On a scale of 1-10, how would you compare FPS and performance between this test and TQ? (1=way worse, 5=same as TQ, 10=OMG this is awesome): Dunno, couldn't play Eve.

# Describe your experience, make comments, suggestions, etc.: Next time you actually want us to test faction ships, call me.

fab24
Gallente
Tax Fraud Corporation
Posted - 2009.08.29 20:03:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: fab24 on 30/08/2009 09:35:13
FIRST

edit, we did it at the same time, get me unbanned for tomorrow test kthxbai

sec edit : Don't forget to thank the bug hunters for all there work

Yes I say thanks to strijd for being a awesome ISD BH.


Infinion
Caldari
Awesome Corp
Posted - 2009.08.29 20:04:00 - [4]
 

3RD

Thong
Posted - 2009.08.29 20:09:00 - [5]
 

Those prolific global pop up messages were assinine Fish. Please be respectful in the future and limit yourself to system wide messaging with your pop ups instead of Singularity wide messages. We are trying to practice setups here, and you kept interrupting us. Thanks.

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2009.08.29 20:09:00 - [6]
 

August 29th

Vista 64
Intel Q9550
GTX 285
FPS 25 no brackets with turret effects on and zoomed in close enough to see ships. 30 if turrets effects and missiles turned off. Made little difference if I zoomed out. With brackets on FPS droped to 5-10.
Audio was enabled.

Was fun but wasn't sure exactly what the point of the test was.

ElfeGER
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.08.29 20:15:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: ElfeGER on 29/08/2009 20:24:08
* August 29 @ 19:00
* Linux Gentoo 64 wine-1.1.28
* Intel 6850
* NV 8800GT
* 8GB Ram
* 0.5 to 15
* audio was on + some ppl have bad microphones
* brackets on and off not a huge difference
* disabled all effects in the fleet combat (hdr off, bloom none, rest set on high)
* FPS are impossible to compare without a repeatable benchmark
* the test was nice but there should be a way to keep important effects like dd on and some ppl fail @ sisi rules

* yes the test was fun and will stop by again if I remember

Bestofworst Worstofbest
Caldari
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2009.08.29 20:17:00 - [8]
 

(Forgive me if I give wrong information since I'm no computer master)

- August 29 @ 19:00
- XP Professional
- Intel Pentium 4 CPU 3.00GHz
- 2.99 GHz, 1.00GB of RAM

- 0.1 - 15 FPS
- Voice chat enabled, Audio cut off during the test
- Brackets were off until the sleepers at the end
- I had all effects but turret and missiles off and all graphic settings low.
- 8 (A lot better than I would expect from TQ)
- CCP WeirdFish you violanced my Faction ship and Accidentally my computer, had to hard reboot.

And of course it was fun.

Squall D'Lyes
Gallente
Universalis Imperium
Posted - 2009.08.29 20:19:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Squall D''Lyes on 29/08/2009 20:22:16
Thank you for the ships to test with. :)

If you participated in either of the tests; please reply to this thread with the following:


  • Which test you were in: (ex. March 6 @ 19:00)
  • August 28 at 19:00 i think (dont remember start time)
  • OS version (XP, Vista 64bit, OS X, Linux - Fedora, etc.)
  • XP
  • CPU (ex. AMD X2 6000+, Intel E6400, etc)
  • Intel Core 2 CPU
  • GPU (ex. ATI 2950, Nvidia 8800, etc)

  • RAM (ex. 2GB, 4GB, etc.)
  • 1gb
  • Average FPS during the test(s)
  • 10 - 15, lower when group of ppl came in or overseers spawned (lol) was also zoomed WAY out
  • Did you have Audio enabled?
  • no
  • Did you have brackets turned on?
  • First part (killing titan) no, second part yes (thought we were killing pos and needed to see where the mods were)
  • Did you use 'optimize settings'? If so, which one did you use?
  • nope, i use the lowest of all settings for visual, but had turrets/missles on still.
  • On a scale of 1-10, how would you compare FPS and performance between this test and TQ? (1=way worse, 5=same as TQ, 10=OMG this is awesome)
  • Seemed about the same so 5
  • Describe your experience, make comments, suggestions, etc.
  • Was a blast. Maybe a little bit more information before hand. Thought it was a pos bash heh. worked out alright though. Maybe have a muted channel so you can give instructions, make it little bit calmer. other than that, it was good.



Finlay did you have fun and will you be attending tests in the future?
heck yeah i did and will definately be back for more tests!


Lewyrus
Argent Moon
Posted - 2009.08.29 20:22:00 - [10]
 

Was awesome. Will go tomorrow.

Aug. 29 @ 19:00 EMT
XP SP3
Intel core 2 duo e8400
ATI hd 4850
3,3 GB
15-18fps
Audio was enabled.
Brackets was on.
Settings was at max, not optimized, all features enabled, resolution was 1620x1050.
FPS comparision is about 7 in avarage.
For the first part, it was equal to TQ, but when the POS was removed, suddenly my FPS doubled for about 3 minutes.

Rydianna
Caldari
Posted - 2009.08.29 20:31:00 - [11]
 

- August 29 @ 19:00
- Vista Professional 32 bit
- Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13GHz
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285
- 2046MB RAM
- ~10 FPS
- Audio : OFF
- Brackets : ON
- Didn't used "Optimize Settings"
Used everything at the minimum, everything turned off
1280x1024 with 32 bit z-scale interval one
- Rate between test and TQ : 5

-FPS were decreasing down to 0.3 on DD and warping. Something that would allow to disable ships textures resolutions would be fine (ie : a cursor that would allow "if more than 20-100 ships don't resolves models")

-Btw the client crashed on Titan's boom in the 1st fight

sina241198
Posted - 2009.08.29 20:40:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: sina241198 on 29/08/2009 20:41:29
- August 29 @ 19:00
- XP profesional
- Intel Pentium 4 CPU 2.8 Ghz
- 266 Mhz 768 MB DDR RAM ( 1x512 MB ,1x256MB)
- Sapphire HD 3650 512MB (Radeon)
- 1.0-12.0 FPS
- Voice Disabled
- Brackhets Off
- Graph. Settings optimized for performance
- 8(better than i'w seen in Fleet fights in TQ)

Was funn today, Survived 3 DD's in my Raven ... :) , wuld have been better if i had a better setup on my computer..

sHERU
Posted - 2009.08.29 21:03:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: sHERU on 29/08/2009 21:06:25
- August 29 @ 19:00
- XP PRO SP3
- Intel C2D E8400
- 800 Mhz DDR2 4GB (3.25 GB effective)
- GeForce 8600 GT
- 1.0-30.0 FPS
- Voice Disabled
- Brackets Off (all effects off except guns and missiles)
- Graph. Settings optimized for performance
- 7 (not bad, but the sleepers dragged some of the fps)

Bit disappointed that there was no frigate tactic.... pointless to bring faction frigates at all... :/

xarjin
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2009.08.30 04:58:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: xarjin on 30/08/2009 05:26:07
Edited by: xarjin on 30/08/2009 05:08:15

# Which test you were in: August 29, 1800

# OS version: Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit build 7600 (rtm)

# CPU: Intel E8400

# GPU: Nvidia 275 GTX @ 2048 x 1152 (Samsung Syncmaster 2343bwx native resolution) game set to interval one

# RAM: 2 GB

# Average FPS during the test(s): max FPS was at best 10-25fps which is suprising. I get 60fps outside the station. My alt's older 180 opteron system with a 7600GT nvidia got a steady 0.5 fps the entire event and took like 4 minutes to regain control of his pod after some nice DD instagibbed the navy mega =P

# Did you have Audio enabled?: Yes ( eve voice in fleet did not work at all for the entire event )

# Did you have brackets turned on?: Brackets disabled per request

# Did you use 'optimize settings'? If so, which one did you use?: Yes, optimized for performance

# On a scale of 1-10, how would you compare FPS and performance between this test and TQ? (1=way worse, 5=same as TQ, 10=OMG this is awesome): yawn...

# Describe your experience, make comments, suggestions, etc.: unbelievably dull experience with no effects or brackets enabled. Tested enabling brackets to liven up the experience and my significantly well performing custom built computer begun begging for mercy Rolling Eyes

Fun event overall! completely amazing watching 20ish Vindicators spawn from nothing in open space YARRRR!!

Etien Aldragoran
Legitimate Corporation
Posted - 2009.08.30 06:32:00 - [15]
 

I slept through this, but from what I'm told, this was a really pointless test if it was trying to mimic TQ engagements. I'm sure you gathered server data, but I cant possibly imagine when you'd ever have that happen on the live server unless your goal was just to look at server i/o rates/latency and cpu loads. Aside from that, did you just throw out faction ships confetti style for people to use in "fleet fights" and decide how it should be balanced?

That's not balance testing.

ElfeGER
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.08.30 08:39:00 - [16]
 

for the faction ship testing I would suggest that the ships are seeded to the market as they are common on tq now

you undock in a mission hub and with you you see a Nightmare, Navy Raven, Golem undocking

Jarome Keel
Posted - 2009.08.30 14:26:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Jarome Keel on 30/08/2009 14:48:44
il comment on what i was there to test, not ****ing server stats.

The cynabal needs about 500 more grid or so to be able to fit any where near what a t1 cruiser could today.

The ashimmu needs more grid and cpu and a drone bay, im sure some one will give a more detailed explanation.

Also the dramiel needs 3 turret hard points, not two and two missiles. it also requires about 5 more grid and 30 or so more cpu

tsukubasteve
The Park Bench
Posted - 2009.08.30 16:17:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: tsukubasteve on 30/08/2009 20:52:21
# Which test you were in: (ex. March 6 @ 19:00)

August [email protected]:00

# OS version (XP, Vista 64bit, OS X, Linux - Fedora, etc.)

Windows XP, Service pack 3

# CPU (ex. AMD X2 6000+, Intel E6400, etc)

Intel E2200 @ 2.2GHz

# GPU (ex. ATI 2950, Nvidia 8800, etc)

Nvidia GeForce 9500 GT (overclocked)

# RAM (ex. 2GB, 4GB, etc.)

2GB

# Average FPS during the test(s)

24 - 32 FPS

# Did you have Audio enabled?

There's sound in space? but then i wouldn't be able to hear my metal :)
I was using voice chat.

# Did you have brackets turned on?

Tried it both ways. Definate improvement in FPS with brackets turned off.

# Did you use 'optimize settings'? If so, which one did you use?

No.. I manually set all graphics settings high.

# On a scale of 1-10, how would you compare FPS and performance between this test and TQ? (1=way worse, 5=same as TQ, 10=OMG this is awesome)

6 - It seemed to be better with a larger fleet, tho there was still quite a bit of lag and desync that I noticed. All in all though, i would consider it a success considering the amount of fleet members, and NPC's that were spawned.

# Describe your experience, make comments, suggestions, etc.

I had a great time doing the tests. Although I have to admit, I wish the Bhaalgorn had a slightly higher cpu and better cap regen, or perhaps a larger cargo bay for cap boosters, since when using a neutralizer fit, it is VERY cap intensive. Combine that with a 100mn mwd, a remote and a personal rep.. plus lasers... there just was not enough cap to go around, even with the cap booster 800's, which i ran out of VERY quickly. For the next Faction battleship test, i think i will try to use an energy vampire fit instead, and perhaps use torpedoes instead of lasers.

Istvaan Shogaatsu
Caldari
Guiding Hand Social Club
Posted - 2009.08.30 20:26:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Istvaan Shogaatsu on 30/08/2009 20:29:52
- August 29, 18:00
- Vista home premium
- Intel Core 2 Quad
- Nvidia 8800 Ultra, 768mb
- 4gb RAM
- Around 10fps when things got hairy.
- Audio was enabled.
- Brackets were tested on/off, with major and obvious improvement in turning them off.
- No optimization of settings.
- On a scale of 1-10, about a 5 - not really different from big furballs on TQ.

Experiences: Couldn't get a faction ship from the mass spawn, so brought my Legion instead. I was hoping for a chance to talk to someone up-top about this ship - many people are complaining about it, and I think I can boil down what they're saying into a brief balance-oriented rant. Basically, the other T3s are fine - but Legion is too limited in options by comparison.

Rydianna
Caldari
Posted - 2009.08.30 20:29:00 - [20]
 

- August 30 @ 19:00
- Vista Professional 32 bit
- Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6400 @ 2.13GHz
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285
- 2046MB RAM
- ~30 FPS
- Audio : OFF
- Brackets : OFF
- Didn't used "Optimize Settings"
Used everything at the minimum, effects turned ON
1280x1024 with 16 bit
- Rate between test and TQ : 8

-This time fps were a lot better than yesterday, even with effects on

Dyphos
Pod Liberation Authority
Pod Liberation Authority.
Posted - 2009.08.30 20:30:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Dyphos on 30/08/2009 20:39:31

  • both tests

  • windows7 64bit

  • core2 Duo T5800, 2ghz

  • nvidia 9600m GT

  • 4gb ram

  • around 20 i guess

  • there's sound in eve? but seriously, i enabled voice, lagged out, turned it off and all was well

  • brackets on, no drones

  • 1920x1080, drone models off, missile fx off, camera shake off, hdr and bloom off. the rest set to high

  • 6, can't really compare since i don't do large fleet stuff much on tq

  • less dd's, spawn more frigs


Overall it was fun, the was more netlag for me than there was fps lag.
As for the faction ships, it's pretty much safe to say that MANY of them need some rebalancing.
For the most part it's just a matter of giving some ships more cpu/pg (ie:daredevil), others need some slots (cruor,dramiel).

Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
Posted - 2009.08.30 20:35:00 - [22]
 


I got some of the faction ships: Navy Vexor, Navy Exequror, and that serpentis frigate, they all horribly sucked. Vexor was lacking powergrid, couldn't fit guns. Exequror just sucked on all fronts, I think even a thorax outperforms it, especially when taking cost/performance into account. The frigate got insta-popped.

I think all faction ships need to get more powergrid and CPU, and they all need to get their resists brought in-line with T2 ships, as they usually cost the same or more than their T2 equivalents.

Which test you were in: (ex. March 6 @ 19:00)
Balance test 30 aug 1800
OS version (XP, Vista 64bit, OS X, Linux - Fedora, etc.)
Win XP 64 bit
CPU (ex. AMD X2 6000+, Intel E6400, etc)
Intel Quad 2.66 GHz
GPU (ex. ATI 2950, Nvidia 8800, etc)
Radeon HD 4870 512mb
RAM (ex. 2GB, 4GB, etc.)
4GB 1066mhz
Average FPS during the test(s)
28-44 fps
Did you have Audio enabled?
yeah
Did you have brackets turned on?
dont know what's that?
Did you use 'optimize settings'? If so, which one did you use?
I had all effects off
On a scale of 1-10, how would you compare FPS and performance between this test and TQ? (1=way worse, 5=same as TQ, 10=OMG this is awesome)
5

Ilannah
Posted - 2009.08.30 20:41:00 - [23]
 

August 30th 19:00 I think
Xp
Amd Athlon 64 X2 Dual
Nvidia 7500
2GB
At least 70fps
Yes audio
All brackets except moons
No, all settings full
At least 9 average at some times 10.

It was great. Whatever you changed in Apochrypha, it really worked. :)

Kalia Masaer
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Posted - 2009.08.30 20:43:00 - [24]
 

August 30th

Vista 64
Intel Q9550
GTX 285
FPS was about 27 with no brackets and effects on, seemed a little better than yesterday.

Sturmwolke
Posted - 2009.08.30 21:00:00 - [25]
 


  • Which test you were in: Both (Aug 29 & 30)

  • OS version: XP SP3

  • CPU: Intel E6600

  • GPU: Nvidia 7300GT

  • RAM: 4GB

  • Average FPS during the test(s): 10-20fps (mid zoom), 60fps (far zoom-out)

  • Did you have Audio enabled? No

  • Did you have brackets turned on? All brackets off

  • Did you use 'optimize settings'? No. All set to "Low", resource cache enabled

  • On a scale of 1-10, how would you compare FPS and performance between this test and TQ? 7-8 I guess. Very playable and miles better than the previous faction warfare test events

  • Describe your experience, make comments, suggestions, etc:

  • No clear details on what to fit the ship for, PVE? PVP?, nor were there prior details on how these faction ships would be passed out. You had to log in, sort out through the confusion and figure out that you need to warp out to a set of beacons. Is it to much to ask for these basic specifics? Pretty much a lot of the things are ad-hoc, which makes one wonders if CCP is really serious about these tests.

    The multiple DD's were bloody annoying. You want to test DDs, fine I don't have a problem getting blown up if you tell me you're testing DD's, or at least give a heads up that there will be a few DD's up the alley. Dragging the fleet through several PVE fights, then dropping the odd random DD's ticks off a lot of folks. I have this gnawing feeling that some of those DD's weren't all for the sake of testing.

  • Finally did you have fun and will you be attending tests in the future?

  • Sorry, not likely unless it's something with more substance.



Sinnbad Mayhem
Posted - 2009.08.30 21:07:00 - [26]
 

-Both tests
-Windows XP, SP3, Fully Patched
-Intel E8400
-Nvidia 8800GT (OC)
-4GB RAM
-45FPS
-NO Audio
-Toggled between brackets to view fleet
-Did not optimize settings
-Overall 8.5
-Was fun surviving the DDs

Stalina
Gallente
Serious Business Incorporated
Posted - 2009.08.30 21:14:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Stalina on 30/08/2009 21:22:47


  • Which test you were in: August 30

  • OS version: Vista 64 SP1

  • CPU : Intel q9550 @ 3.1GHz

  • GPU : Radeon 4870x2

  • RAM : 4GB Embarassed

  • Average Fps: around 50-80

  • Did you have Audio enabled? Eve has sound?

  • Did you have brackets turned on? Only for planets / moons / belts

  • Did you use 'optimize settings'? everything to the max @ 1920x1200

  • On a scale of 1-10, how would you compare FPS and performance between this test and TQ? Like 8-9



Was fun, maybe we could get such kind of events on tq somewhere in the far future.
Also I'd like to see some Gallente-Amarrships.

Sera Ryskin
Posted - 2009.08.30 21:15:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Sera Ryskin on 30/08/2009 21:36:12
Originally by: CCP WeirdFish
Just to clarify the events you did helped us gather server data, the balance testing is up to you to do whenever you wish now that you have the ships, please let us know when you have tryed them out.



Now if only you had been this honest BEFORE the test...




However: you want opinions on ship balance? Here, have some:



Sanshas:


These are the most recently re-balanced, and it shows. This is the level that all faction ships should be balanced to, they are expensive, but excellent choices for solo and small gang PvP.


Phantasm: fine exactly as it is. I would not complain about a boost to one of my favorite ships (25mb drones would be nice), but its only real problem is the high price tag.

Nightmare: fine exactly as it is.

Succubus: mostly fine, but fitting is a problem. Getting MWD, medium shield extender, cap booster and T2 pulses (the required modules for PvP) forces you to leave your high slots empty. Add more grid so that we can fit a proper setup please.



Guristas:


All of them are crippled by split weapons, resulting in terrible damage output. They need to gain a full rack of missile slots (4 for the Worm, 5 for the Gila, 6 for the Rattlesnake) and ideally change the missile damage bonus to a ROF bonus. For their Gallente bonus, the useless hybrid damage bonus needs to be swapped to an increase in drone bay size and bandwidth (+5mb and +10m3 per level for the Worm, +10mb and +15m3 for the Gila, +25mb and +40m3 for the Rattlesnake). Giving a static drone bay and a drone damage bonus would of course be even better, but would lead to some rather unbalanced dps.


Also, the Worm and Gila have terrible fitting problems that need to be fixed, but you'll have to change their grid/CPU anyway if you fix their hardpoint issues.



Serpentis:


Overall, they aren't terrible, but the main problem is they really don't offer all that much compared to their T1 and T2 counterparts. And since blaster ships are flown at suicidally close range where they often die, the extra price tag is just not acceptable when the improvements are so minimal.


The solution is to give them more Minmatar influence and make them into blaster "Vagabonds". That is, high base speed, hybrid turret damage and ROF bonuses, possibly a speed bonus (or a tracking or falloff bonus if speed would be too powerful), and a shield buffer tank. Adjust the mid/low slot balance and grid/CPU a bit, and you have a much more appealing ship.

Also, the Daredevil, like all faction frigate, suffers from a laughable two turret slots and needs to gain a full four in addition to any other changes.


Angels:


The problem here is similar to the Serpentis ships, they aren't terrible ships, but they don't really offer very much for their price. Is it really worth paying a ton of extra money to get a Rupture with a tracking bonus? Especially when even a Muninn, arguably the worst HAC, gives you so much more for the same price?


The solution, IMO, difficult since the Serpentis ships have taken the best option for Gallente/Minmatar, but I have at least one idea: swap the tracking bonus for a warp scrambler range bonus (inherited from the Gallente recons). This gives them an edge in the mid-range area, allowing them to kill the target's MWD from a much longer range, then exploit their superior speed and long falloff to score the kill.

Also, like the other faction frigates, the Dramiel needs a full four turret slots (what idiot thought three gun bonuses on two gun hardpoints was a good idea?).

Sera Ryskin
Posted - 2009.08.30 21:46:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Sera Ryskin on 30/08/2009 21:46:31
Blood Raiders

Ah yes, and now we come to the worst faction ships in the game. Currently, they just plain suck. You have web range bonuses on ships with too few mid slots to fit a web, web range bonuses that greatly exceed the range of the neuts, a useless laser cap reduction bonus on ships that fit few, if any lasers, and a neut amount bonus that is tiny compared to the Curse and Pilgrim. Add in hilariously impossible grid/CPU limits, and you have a set of ships that are only useful as hangar ornaments.

The solution comes in three parts:


1) Change the laser cap bonus to a drone damage bonus, add a drone bay comparable to other dedicated drone ships in the appropriate class, and then remove all the turret hardpoints, moving some of the now-redundant high slots to mid slots (or just remove some of them entirely). This allows them to do two important things: actually USE their web bonuses (while fitting MWD, cap booster, and warp disruptor, mandatory on PvP fits), and do enough damage that they have a chance of getting a solo kill without their opponent laughing so hard that they hit the self destruct button.


2) Fix the grid and CPU. Exact numbers will depend on the final results of the previous point, but they need to be able to fit legitimate PvP setups without spending all their low slots on RCUs.


3) Re-evaluate the neut/NOS bonus. Consider either increasing it to match the Curse and Pilgrim, or changing it to a range bonus to give more synergy with the web range bonus. Or, depending on how the ships look after the previous two things are done, do nothing. This is the lowest priority problem, if the ships can be fixed elsewhere, the neut/NOS bonus may be fine the way it is.




Empire faction ships will be added later, but this is a good start. Make these changes, and put them on SiSi for us to test.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.08.30 22:35:00 - [30]
 

Posting those links here again as this is supposed to be the appropriate feedback thread.

On Pirate Faction Ships
(Alternative Guristas Modification)
On Empire Faction Ships


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only