Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Char Aznobel
Remnants Of Zeon
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 16:18:58 -
[1] - Quote
Assault Frigates: Incendiary rounds
This role specific ability is a debuff applied to the repair rate of target ships. Damage applied by these ships reduces module repair rate based on hull size, stacking to a maximum debuff of 20%. The type of debuff could also be race specific,
Amarr/Caldari - debuff applies to shield
Gallante/Minmatar - debuff applies to armor
Here is an example of how hull type would impact the debuff, per ship against target hull.
Assault Frigate
Frigate - 2%
Destroyer - 1.5%
Cruiser/Battlecruiser - 1%
Battleship - 0.5%
Capital - 0.1%
So it would take a 200 man AF fleet to reach the 20% cap against a capital ship.
Heavy Assault Cruiser
Frigate - 4%
Destroyer - 3%
Cruiser/Battlecruiser - 2%
Battleship - 1%
Capital - 0.2%
Ship info could be something like this,
Jaguar Minmatar Frigate bonuses (per skill level): 5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret damage 7.5% bonus to Small Projectile Turret tracking speed
Assault Frigates bonuses (per skill level): 10% bonus to Small Projectile Turret optimal range 5% bonus to Incendiary round effectiveness against armor Role Bonus: Incendiary rounds, disrupting the effectiveness repair modules.
In large fleet battles you could set up a wing of AFGÇÖS/HACGÇÖS to do hit and run tactics against specific targets, thoughts? |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5181
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 16:24:30 -
[2] - Quote
...You don't tend to be repairing your modules during a fleet fight. You do that while you're off grid, out of system, or generally not being engaged by anything.
Which makes your module repair debuff rather useless, doesn't it.
Also, how does an incendiary round affect a module if there's a shield in the way? |
Char Aznobel
Remnants Of Zeon
0
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 16:36:33 -
[3] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:...You don't tend to be repairing your modules during a fleet fight. You do that while you're off grid, out of system, or generally not being engaged by anything.
Which makes your module repair debuff rather useless, doesn't it.
Also, how does an incendiary round affect a module if there's a shield in the way?
I wasn't talking about repairing overheated modules, I was referring to the shield booster/armor rep module effectiveness. Sorry for the confusion I edited the post. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
20100
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 17:47:26 -
[4] - Quote
How do you think incendiary rounds would work in space?
Murderers of Negotiable Motivations
Lords.Of.Midnight currently recruiting
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3553
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 17:52:50 -
[5] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:How do you think incendiary rounds would work in space? not saying I like the idea, but certain chemical reactions are self contained and are able to function in conditions where you would not expect things to be able to burn.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Char Aznobel
Remnants Of Zeon
2
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 17:53:50 -
[6] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:How do you think incendiary rounds would work in space?
you mean "EvE space." |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
3086
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 18:12:45 -
[7] - Quote
Eh. At least it's a newish idea, I guess, but I don't think it would really change the landscape for AFs any.
Buffer tanks with logi support are more common than local active tanks in any sizeable engagement, and even if it reduced incoming remote reps, the existing strategies for thwarting logi (ECM, damps, MJFGs, blapping logi off the field, etc.) do a more thorough job, with fewer pilots necessary.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3500
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 18:18:19 -
[8] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Eh. At least it's a newish idea.
not really the only new part is the name and it only being on AF the rest has come up time and time again
BLOPS Hauler
|
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
597
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 18:21:53 -
[9] - Quote
Why would I want AFs, when I can just damp the **** out of a logi and get -100% efficiency?
It's a new idea, but I don't think this would make the AF useful.
But on the note of "debuffing rounds", I would find it more interesting if an AF applied a debuff that would increase the incoming dps on a ship. Say for example, AF could fit a weapon system with rounds, that applied a 10s debuff that increased all damage on a target for 10%. I think something like that would be more interesting that decreasing rep efficiency.
Anyway, I'm just brainstorming now so this might be OP as **** or useless as hell... Haven't decided yet. :D |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3500
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 18:24:02 -
[10] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Why would I want AFs, when I can just damp the **** out of a logi and get -100% efficiency?
It's a new idea, but I don't think this would make the AF useful.
But on the note of "debuffing rounds", I would find it more interesting if an AF applied a debuff that would increase the incoming dps on a ship. Say for example, AF could fit a weapon system with rounds, that applied a 10s debuff that increased all damage on a target for 10%. I think something like that would be more interesting that decreasing rep efficiency.
Anyway, I'm just brainstorming now so this might be OP as **** :D
i want you to stop and think.....
does this really sound balanced? just try for a few seconds and see if you can find a way to break this??
you figure a way out? yeah this is broken
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
598
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 18:25:46 -
[11] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i want you to stop and think.....
does this really sound balanced? just try for a few seconds and see if you can find a way to break this??
you figure a way out? yeah this is broken
As I said, I was just brainstorming :D At least it's more useful than decreasing rep rounds.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3501
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 18:29:03 -
[12] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i want you to stop and think.....
does this really sound balanced? just try for a few seconds and see if you can find a way to break this??
you figure a way out? yeah this is broken
As I said, I was just brainstorming :D At least it's more useful than decreasing rep rounds.
so is giving them a grid nuke
BLOPS Hauler
|
Char Aznobel
Remnants Of Zeon
2
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 18:34:56 -
[13] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Maekchu wrote:Why would I want AFs, when I can just damp the **** out of a logi and get -100% efficiency?
It's a new idea, but I don't think this would make the AF useful.
But on the note of "debuffing rounds", I would find it more interesting if an AF applied a debuff that would increase the incoming dps on a ship. Say for example, AF could fit a weapon system with rounds, that applied a 10s debuff that increased all damage on a target for 10%. I think something like that would be more interesting that decreasing rep efficiency.
Anyway, I'm just brainstorming now so this might be OP as **** :D i want you to stop and think..... does this really sound balanced? just try for a few seconds and see if you can find a way to break this?? you figure a way out? yeah this is broken
If it's applied to either shield/armor pick the according ship, or you could introduce a module similar to defender missles that nullify it or even have certain ship types immune to its effects like pirate factions. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3501
|
Posted - 2017.01.13 18:37:29 -
[14] - Quote
Char Aznobel wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Maekchu wrote:Why would I want AFs, when I can just damp the **** out of a logi and get -100% efficiency?
It's a new idea, but I don't think this would make the AF useful.
But on the note of "debuffing rounds", I would find it more interesting if an AF applied a debuff that would increase the incoming dps on a ship. Say for example, AF could fit a weapon system with rounds, that applied a 10s debuff that increased all damage on a target for 10%. I think something like that would be more interesting that decreasing rep efficiency.
Anyway, I'm just brainstorming now so this might be OP as **** :D i want you to stop and think..... does this really sound balanced? just try for a few seconds and see if you can find a way to break this?? you figure a way out? yeah this is broken If it's applied to either shield/armor pick the according ship, or you could introduce a module similar to defender missles that nullify it or even have certain ship types immune to its effects like pirate factions.
you didn't stop and think did you? or maybe you didn't try hard enough?
your little additions there did not help... think of what would happen to the meta if you added in something that made alpha easier once your down with that now think of adding in ships that are immune to it
BLOPS Hauler
|
Fek Mercer
Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy
28
|
Posted - 2017.01.14 04:11:57 -
[15] - Quote
The idea sounds cool, i see quite a few videos where fleets of ships are unable to break the tank of larger singular ships and this idea could help AFs get a new role in helping with that.
also crow needs to chill out |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3503
|
Posted - 2017.01.14 04:55:23 -
[16] - Quote
Fek Mercer wrote: Another idea would be for incendiaries to put the target's modules into a state in which: a) they cannot be overheated b) they take heat damage as if they were overheated c) the cycle time stays the same
also crow needs to chill out
a) broken b)really broken c) wut
ppl need to think their ideas through
BLOPS Hauler
|
Char Aznobel
Remnants Of Zeon
2
|
Posted - 2017.01.14 10:22:41 -
[17] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
ppl need to think their ideas through
Yeah? And guess how that happens, by having a discussion about their ideas! Do you really think every good idea just came out perfect? Or maybe, just maybe it had some inherent flaws and so some people had a conversation about it to make it better.
Do you know the difference between criticism and constructive criticism? Didn't think so. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3508
|
Posted - 2017.01.14 11:14:29 -
[18] - Quote
i'm just telling you how the ideas are broken. you doing something constructive with that is up to you
BLOPS Hauler
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
11363
|
Posted - 2017.01.14 17:22:55 -
[19] - Quote
I am not sure how I feel about this idea.
On one hand... it is not the most "horrible" idea I have come across in F&I. And it is a pretty interesting concept with some practical use (without being totally overpowered).
On the other hand... it would not help Assault Frigates in large engagements (Remote Repairs and Logi) and would serve to put solo players (who generally rely rely on active tanks) at more of a disadvantage than they already are. And if the concept were applied to RR as well... I could definitely see large gangs having Assault Frigate wings whose primary task is to neutralize Logi ships... which will cause some SERIOUS upsets in the current fleet/gang meta and perhaps even devolve things back into a "Alpha everything" meta.
I get that people want to see AFs get some more "OOMPH" but I don't think this is it. It is too narrow of a focus and won't help AFs overall... especially since Tech 3 Destroyers will still be better than them in almost every respect (which I think is the exact crux of the problem to begin with).
How did you Veterans start?
|
Mole Guy
Band of Builders Inc. Silent Infinity
458
|
Posted - 2017.01.14 18:35:28 -
[20] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:How do you think incendiary rounds would work in space? navy torpedo fuel creates its own oxygen. doesnt need it to burn.
im sure there could be something like this in the future.
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3513
|
Posted - 2017.01.14 19:11:33 -
[21] - Quote
Mole Guy wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:How do you think incendiary rounds would work in space? navy torpedo fuel creates its own oxygen. doesnt need it to burn. im sure there could be something like this in the future.
okay. how does it work through a shield?
BLOPS Hauler
|
Fek Mercer
Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy
28
|
Posted - 2017.01.15 04:29:52 -
[22] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i'm just telling you how the ideas are broken. you doing something constructive with that is up to you
moments earlier...
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i want you to stop and think.....
does this really sound balanced? just try for a few seconds and see if you can find a way to break this??
you figure a way out? yeah this is broken
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: a) broken b)really broken c) wut
You're not helping. You're just neckbearding.
|
Char Aznobel
Remnants Of Zeon
2
|
Posted - 2017.01.15 18:27:58 -
[23] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:I get that people want to see AFs get some more "OOMPH" but I don't think this is it. It is too narrow of a focus and won't help AFs overall... especially since Tech 3 Destroyers will still be better than them in almost every respect (which I think is the exact crux of the problem to begin with).
Right. So lets say this isn't the change AF's need, the things we can agree on is that:
1. AF's should pack a punch 2. AF's need a rework 3. They are currently overshadowed by T3D's
The only way I can see AF's work if there is some sort of unique offensive ability attached to it. I think reworking pre-existing stats will only lead to redundancy and further balance issues.
You know it's funny the more I think about it, maybe it's the T3D's that are the problem. What if you took the idea of having different modes and just applied that idea to AF's, except it would only have one mode "Assault mode." This is where it would gain a brief boost in speed/damage followed by a cooldown that somehow lowers certain ship stats.
And T3D's? Maybe they need a total rework. IMO T3's should be all about customization, and I like what they did with the cruisers. But for destroyers it could be changed to have some sort of swappable core module. This module would be one of four modules that specialize in missiles,lasers,projectiles and hybrid. This would allow you to make a caldari laser boat if you really wanted to. Or something crazy like that.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3515
|
Posted - 2017.01.15 18:46:46 -
[24] - Quote
Char Aznobel wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:I get that people want to see AFs get some more "OOMPH" but I don't think this is it. It is too narrow of a focus and won't help AFs overall... especially since Tech 3 Destroyers will still be better than them in almost every respect (which I think is the exact crux of the problem to begin with). Right. So lets say this isn't the change AF's need, the things we can agree on is that: 1. AF's should pack a punch 2. AF's need a rework 3. They are currently overshadowed by T3D's The only way I can see AF's work if there is some sort of unique offensive ability attached to it. I think reworking pre-existing stats will only lead to redundancy and further balance issues. You know it's funny the more I think about it, maybe it's the T3D's that are the problem. What if you took the idea of having different modes and just applied that idea to AF's, except it would only have one mode "Assault mode." This is where it would gain a brief boost in speed/damage followed by a cooldown that somehow lowers certain ship stats. And T3D's? Maybe they need a total rework. IMO T3's should be all about customization, and I like what they did with the cruisers. But for destroyers it could be changed to have some sort of swappable core module. This module would be one of four modules that specialize in missiles,lasers,projectiles and hybrid. This would allow you to make a caldari laser boat if you really wanted to. Or something crazy like that.
only thing more broken than the t3ds system is the t3cs system
better plan to fix all sorts of ballancing issues
remove t3s
BLOPS Hauler
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy
11374
|
Posted - 2017.01.15 21:18:45 -
[25] - Quote
Char Aznobel wrote:Right. So lets say this isn't the change AF's need, the things we can agree on is that:
1. AF's should pack a punch 2. AF's need a rework 3. They are currently overshadowed by T3D's 1a. I am leery to give AFs too much more power than they currently have. Like I said in my previous post, I see them as "more mobile destroyers." Less punching power, but greater ability to pick and choose engagements and a fair bit tougher.
2a. I am not opposed to a rework on some of the AFs bonuses. Some of them (like the Ishkur) kind of made sense when they were reviewed the first time around... but they don't make much sense now. And don't sniff at bonuses. Even small changes can have drastic effects here.
3a. Pretty much. I liked some of the presentations that the DEVs gave awhile back regarding where they want to see the "power placement" of ships. http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/8742/1/Shiptech_1920.jpg
Unfortunately... the DEVs have not done a very good job at adhering to it. Right now we have a situation where ships are more like this... http://imgur.com/a/d51wc
Honestly... if I had my way... I would be "throttling" quite a few ships to make them more generalist (and by default, giving specialized ships more "breathing room" to actually be the "kings" of their particular trades.
But I am sure I would get A LOT of hate for doing that.
Char Aznobel wrote:The only way I can see AF's work if there is some sort of unique offensive ability attached to it. I think reworking pre-existing stats will only lead to redundancy and further balance issues. I am leery about making things "too unique" as it sets a precedent in future development and makes balancing the ship overall difficult as the "special snowflake" aspect has to be taken into account in the larger scheme of things.
Example 1: Tech 3 Cruisers were the first ship to get the Interdiction Nullification ability. Then Interceptors got it. Now there are some people clamoring for shuttles and some hauling ships to get it as well (because it is simply THAT useful).
Example 2: Blockade Runners have the built-in ability to block ship and cargo scanning. Now there are people out there who want that ability made into a module that can fit on any ship.
Example: 3: Black Ops ships have the unique ability to teleport ships and themselves to a covert cyno to a far flung destination without the investment of a Titan. They also have battleship levels of gank with a fair amount of flexibility (unlike capital ships).
This makes them a potentially powerful "force multiplier" and thus a HUGE threat. As a result, their tank has to be kept nerfed (hard) and they are disallowed from using Covert-Ops cloaks (because it isn't reasonable to have sneaky groups of, what are essentially cloaky battlecruisers with a jump drive, flying around).
This is not to say that unique abilities are "bad." But taking it all has to be taken with a healthy grain of salt.
Char Aznobel wrote:You know it's funny the more I think about it, maybe it's the T3D's that are the problem. What if you took the idea of having different modes and just applied that idea to AF's, except it would only have one mode I am more partial to doing one of two things:
- Bring T3D's base stats down to Tech 1 levels while (slightly) increasing the bonuses for each mode and increasing the "cooldown time" between modes (making them more vulnerable, forcing them to commit to certain tactics for longer periods of time, and reducing "mode shenanigans").
- Keep the T3D stats where they are but swinging the nerfbat HARD on their mode bonuses (so they are more "generalist" ships with small "edge bonuses" that can be changed on the fly).
How did you Veterans start?
|
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
439
|
Posted - 2017.01.15 22:22:44 -
[26] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:How do you think incendiary rounds would work in space? I'm against the idea, but to answer your question directly; the same way as most rockets work - but including the oxidizer. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3517
|
Posted - 2017.01.16 01:59:06 -
[27] - Quote
Fek Mercer wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:i'm just telling you how the ideas are broken. you doing something constructive with that is up to you moments earlier... Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: i want you to stop and think.....
does this really sound balanced? just try for a few seconds and see if you can find a way to break this??
you figure a way out? yeah this is broken
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: a) broken b)really broken c) wut
You're not helping. You're just neckbearding.
how so the first was a suggestion on a proccess to take before posting crap and the second pointed out poor ideas and asked a question
BLOPS Hauler
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1571
|
Posted - 2017.01.16 11:02:34 -
[28] - Quote
Char Aznobel wrote:...You know it's funny the more I think about it, maybe it's the T3D's that are the problem. What if you took the idea of having different modes and just applied that idea to AF's, except it would only have one mode "Assault mode." This is where it would gain a brief boost in speed/damage followed by a cooldown
By Lucifer, no more cooldowns or modes.
What assault ships need are better capacitors, a little fitting room and maybe a little speed or a 25% overheat bonus.
Preferably not both, put them on a citadel-free test-server and let us hammer out the kinks like we pay CCP for a decade now to do. Wait that sounds wrong..
Eve Minions is recruiting.
This is the law of ship progression!
Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3520
|
Posted - 2017.01.16 14:48:48 -
[29] - Quote
Why a citadel free server?
BLOPS Hauler
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18541
|
Posted - 2017.01.16 15:11:21 -
[30] - Quote
Nerf t3d down to t1 level, their modes bump up stats to t2 while decreasing stats in another area. For example speed mode bumps up the speed but reduces firepower/tracking/tanking abilities.
AF along with a lot of other ships are now fixed. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |