Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Ilik Tanikalot
Black Rebel Rifter Club
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:41:00 -
[31] - Quote
Regarding the proposed bonuses/slot changes per ship: I have to agree to a certain extent with Ava and Miura here, AFs are already a force for the seasoned solo PVP pilot and buffing them like proposed will limit their target selection (aka people willing to fight them) concerning (faction) frigs and dessys quite a bit. However, I also see an opportunity for AFs to be more confident against a wider range of cruisers with those bonuses. This may balance out, but I am skeptical.
Regarding the reduction in signature radius penalty (in a fleet setting): Well, just no. Interceptors already fill that role really well and can in competent hands provide both the tank and the 'catching' ability they were intended for. AFs so far had the 'catching' role of a short point (scram) tank to ensure holding down the target even more. For this a balance of sacrifices was there, better tank/but also slower speed combined with a bigger sig radius ensuring a lot of targets can actually hit the AF better than the inty. With such a change AFs would become a defacto tackling ship to ensure targets are well and truly locked down. I'm rambling here, so I'll stop.
Regarding the reduction in signature radius penalty (not necessarily solo, lo-sec): Checked the usage anytime? Nearly no one uses a MWD there, this bonus would change nothing for that; basically be unused in lo-sec. Maybe some of the 0.0 roamers have another input, can't speak for them, but I'd hazard the guess this would only affect their approach and I'd also guess they can handle that nicely enough already.
In general towards the AF bonus: I think the reduction in MWD radius penalty is not the way to go. The AB boost seemed kinda overpowered too. But I think speed comes out as an issue via one bonus or the other. While I did not run the numbers, how would a considerable base speed bonus for all AFs work out.
Cheers, Ilik Tanikalot
|
Kaeda Maxwell
Black Rebel Rifter Club
27
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 16:58:00 -
[32] - Quote
First of all; I write this from a lowsec background and having spend a lot of time in frigs and assault ships. And I am in a corp that is largely centered around T1/T2 frigate combat.
Reading these changes my first response is; It's to much.
But I think I see what you (CCP) are trying to do. You're trying to make ASF's (more) viable for fleet roles. If you put these changes through the way you have written them down in the OP they'll do something else as well though, namely this;
These changes will either wipe out lowsec frigate solo PvP or make it incredibly stale. T1 frigates will become utterly nonviable. No longer will a month old newbie coming out of trial be able to read Wensley's famous Rifter guide go out and get some kills, because even the most incompetent T2 frigate pilot will swat T1 frigates like flies.
First of all the general role bonus related to the MWD's is a poor choice imho, it invades to much on the role of the Interceptor and does little for the role of ASF's where they are currently used most (lowsec). I don't think you should give them an AB bonus instead, because creating a class of small sig, 1500m/sec afterburner ships with decent tanks is a really bad balancing idea all of it's own (seriously it would be dead solo (battle)cruisers galore!)
If you insist on giving them a general role bones think up something else please (maybe a 5% level agility bonus or some such, or a vengeance like cap bonus which would be more inline with the heavy tackler role you seem to want to place them in for fleet usage -just brainstorming-)
Things that really jump out to me as "wrong" from my soloist perspective;
Enyo, seriously a web and increased damage after the blaster buff you just put through? This thing will face melt stuff.
Ishkur, It was already amazing, now it's just broken.
Jaguar, thanks for the free nano, my already fast ASF is now even faster with a tracking bonus to boot so now really the only thing you can do is bring 2 webs and sit in falloff to beat this or the Jaguar pilot gets to just disengage whenever.
Hawk, Dual web shield hawks will be scary (p.s. active tanks are fine for PvP there's some very competent hawk and cyclone (solo)pilots out there in new eden).
Wolf, I am never flying any other frig ever again, ever, ever, ever if you put it in like this, currently the only weakness a solo wolf has is its inability to track under 2500m and the fact it's a little sluggish (and maybe the explosive resist hole but that's easily mended). What have you just done? * Freed up a rig slot (no need for metastasis anymore) where I can now plug the explosive hole or add even more damage (because 250-300 dps it has now was a little low right...?) Mind you any decent Wolf pilot will be carrying a drop booster already. *Given me an extra low to mend the speed deficiency or free up fitting space elsewhere via a fitting module. *Added free armor which is just gravy at this point.
tl;dr you're massively over buffing them, a simple extra role bonus would have been plenty, with the exception of the extra mid on the retri all the other extra slots and bonuses are WAY to much like this they'll obsolete T1 frigs completely and a fair chunk of T1 cruisers too. |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
331
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 17:11:00 -
[33] - Quote
pmchem wrote:MWD role bonus is really uncreative.
I'm agreeing with a goon.
|
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
97
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:02:00 -
[34] - Quote
I tested the Retribution a bit and my conclusion: it's still bad. It's usable thanks to the second mid but clearly not on the same level as the other AFs.
It can't control range with only two mids. Once in close range, even Gatling Pulse Laser II have some difficulty tracking an orbiting frigate, and cruisers and battlecruisers go faster than a webbed Retribution. It's going to be soloed by a competent Dramiel or Interceptor pilot, which is very unlikely to happen to the other AFs. It doesn't even win against either Caldari AFs where the damage types are both working in the Retribution's favor.
As funny as it sounds, the ship needs a 3rd mid (lose the utility high) or some real damage boosts. It's also pretty hard to fit, I found myself needing powergrid hardwirings for pretty normal fits even with AWU V. |
Benjamin Hamburg
Kernel of War Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:08:00 -
[35] - Quote
That's not good, no.
AS does'nt need a MWD boost as most of them does'nt use one anyway.
Most Assault Ship fit an afterburner in PVP and does'nt serve as Tacklers like interceptor but as cheap DPS platform or solo PVP boat.
Give them an afterburner boost, maybe a speed boost. Then we may speak about something interesting.
Other change seems okay, the addition of mid/low will greatly help as fitting AS was hearthbreaking between either tank, gank or tackle.
Again, change the MWD bonus, it is'nt usefull at all. |
gfldex
255
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:27:00 -
[36] - Quote
Kaeda Maxwell wrote: Enyo, seriously a web and increased damage after the blaster buff you just put through? This thing will face melt stuff.
No it wont: "To bring Warp Scrambler II online requires 36.00 cpu units, but only 27.75 of the 193.75 units that your computer produces are still available."
You could reach 400dps but then you would have 5 empty slots. If you want to melt you are better of with a Catalyst. There is still hope for EVE:
"Best Regards, GM Ninjapirate" |
Ilik Tanikalot
Black Rebel Rifter Club
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:45:00 -
[37] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Kaeda Maxwell wrote: Enyo, seriously a web and increased damage after the blaster buff you just put through? This thing will face melt stuff.
No it wont: "To bring Warp Scrambler II online requires 36.00 cpu units, but only 27.75 of the 193.75 units that your computer produces are still available." You could reach 400dps but then you would have 5 empty slots. If you want to melt you are better of with a Catalyst.
Not knowing your fit, the J5b Warp Scrambler just said hello to you anyway. |
Ava Starfire
Teraa Matar
170
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 18:57:00 -
[38] - Quote
To Kaeda, well said. Wolf will be pretty pwn... and as a solo losec wolf pilot, I say PLEASE, dont do this!
To those screaming "swap the optimal and falloff bonuses on the jag/wolf!!" i say.... NO.
Wolf has no web. It cannot dictate range. It is a terrible artillery platform. It works ok in a vagawolf config, with 200s and MWD, long point, and 2 TE simply because if it gets scrammed, its flimsy but can still fight. A MWDing AF is EASY to land a scram on for an AB/scram frigate. Insanely easy.
If this happens, Jag is insanely OP, wolf is useless, as Arty wolves are a joke. Jag has a web. It can control range, is already the fastest AF, and just scored a free nano. Learn to close range I guess? With, you know, a web, and the fastest AF... I think you can figure it out.
Wolf cannot dictate range. Jaguar can. Which one needs that falloff bonus more? Just because you want a T2 dramiel dosent mean its a good choice. I have to wonder if some of the posters in this thread have ever flown an AF, like the "I cannot fit a scram" Enyo comment above.
Second mid for retri, 4th bonus, call it a day. |
Flistir
Blue Republic
9
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:11:00 -
[39] - Quote
I'm surprised that people are still suggesting afterburner bonuses. I thought that the prenerf Dramiel would have made everyone learn what a bad idea it is to combine silly speeds with an afterburner. |
Azual Skoll
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:15:00 -
[40] - Quote
The changes are a good start, but if implemented as they are I'm concerned Assault Frigates will be quite significantly overpowered in a solo or small gang environment.
Right now, AFs are already quite effective in this environment, but are of little use in larger fleets due to their lack of a defined role. The MWD role bonus is obviously an attempt to give them one, and I think it's on the right track - it makes the AF competent at chasing down targets under MWD, and the choice between an inty and an AF for this role becomes one of speed vs survivability. The two ship classes would compete, but each offer different advantages over the other. The MWD bonus doesn't really buff them as solo ships, but this is exactly as it should be - they are already very effective in that area.
The other changes are more dangerous - they don't really help AFs in the defined role you've tried to give them above, but do make them significantly more powerful as direct combatants, an area that they already do well in. The bonuses alone would probably be quite reasonable, but the additional slots too are likely a step too far (the retribution is the only one that really needs one, and this can easily be achieved by rearranging its existing slots rather than adding a new one).
Edit: And please, don't as some people suggest change the falloff bonus on the wolf. The jaguar's optimal range bonus is indeed fairly useless (and should maybe be revisited), but it would be equally useless on the wolf. Eve Blogger at www.evealtruist.com Director of Agony Unleashed, and Head of PVP-University |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:16:00 -
[41] - Quote
tbh make that 50% reduction in sig radius also affect cap activation cost for the mwd and you got a good role bonus.. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:41:00 -
[42] - Quote
I think this is a start, but it's literally a step off the line.
General points:
You can't go around adding slots without adding enough CPU/PG to fit things in them. The Hawk, for example, is too hard to fit right now. If you're going to add a midslot, you need to add more than 10 CPU. Same with the Harpy - what are you putting in there that uses 10 CPU!???! MWD bonus is lame. MWDs are harder to fit than ABs. They have a cap penalty, which penalises everything apart from projectiles and rockets (and therefore is yet another buff to the jaguar and wolf - I fly both, and I think they're OP right now). It penalises active tanking, which is already not used. Also, it will significantly reduce the usage of interceptors, as there is now almost no line between the two ship classes after this buff. The jaguar and the wolf were already good enough - I fly both of them. They didn't need buffing, and with the buffs you're testing they will now both be seriously OP.
Specific points per ship:
I'll only discuss the ones I fly
Harpy: increase in low is nice, as is the bonus to shield resistance. Needs more CPU. A lot more CPU. It needed +40 CPU before you added a midslot. So, call it +64.
Hawk: The bonus to active tanking is useless. It's terrible, change it to something else. Thanks for the RoF and midslot, but again needs a lot more CPU.
Shameless quote other poster: Also, you still haven't fixed the Wolf/Jaguar bonus problem (the Jaguar is the Vagabond-style fast autocannon ship but has a range bonus appropriate for artillery, while the Wolf would work well as an artillery platform but gets a falloff bonus for ACs).
Jaguar: needs to get a midslot rather than a low. |
Kalaratiri
Teraa Matar
81
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:50:00 -
[43] - Quote
Svennig wrote:You can't go around adding slots without adding enough CPU/PG to fit things in them. The Hawk, for example, is too hard to fit right now. If you're going to add a midslot, you need to add more than 10 CPU.
Nope.
[Hawk DualMSE]
[Empty high slot] Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket Rocket launcher II Thorn Rage Rocket
Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters J2b Phased Prototype Warp Scrambler I X5 Prototype Engine Enervator Medium Shield Extender II Medium shield Extender II
Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core I
Small Ancillary Current Router I Small Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Needs a +2% pg implant.
OP much? |
Ava Starfire
Teraa Matar
173
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 19:54:00 -
[44] - Quote
Svennig wrote:I think this is a start, but it's literally a step off the line. General points: You can't go around adding slots without adding enough CPU/PG to fit things in them. The Hawk, for example, is too hard to fit right now. If you're going to add a midslot, you need to add more than 10 CPU. Same with the Harpy - what are you putting in there that uses 10 CPU!???! MWD bonus is lame. MWDs are harder to fit than ABs. They have a cap penalty, which penalises everything apart from projectiles and rockets (and therefore is yet another buff to the jaguar and wolf - I fly both, and I think they're OP right now). It penalises active tanking, which is already not used. Also, it will significantly reduce the usage of interceptors, as there is now almost no line between the two ship classes after this buff. The jaguar and the wolf were already good enough - I fly both of them. They didn't need buffing, and with the buffs you're testing they will now both be seriously OP. Specific points per ship: I'll only discuss the ones I fly Harpy: increase in low is nice, as is the bonus to shield resistance. Needs more CPU. A lot more CPU. It needed +40 CPU before you added a midslot. So, call it +64. Hawk: The bonus to active tanking is useless. It's terrible, change it to something else. Thanks for the RoF and midslot, but again needs a lot more CPU. Shameless quote other poster: Also, you still haven't fixed the Wolf/Jaguar bonus problem (the Jaguar is the Vagabond-style fast autocannon ship but has a range bonus appropriate for artillery, while the Wolf would work well as an artillery platform but gets a falloff bonus for ACs). Jaguar: needs to get a midslot rather than a low.
What? So let me get this straight... you want a 5 midslot, falloff bonused Jag, and you cant fit a hawk or harpy.
What? |
Godcon
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 20:26:00 -
[45] - Quote
I really wish you guys would of been more creative with the role bonus, there was a lot of room for cool bonuses that fit Assault Frigates better. |
Toterra
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 20:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
I am not sure if I like the changes or not, however I think I understand the logic behind the 50% mwd bonus. When flying solo or in a small AF gang in 0.0 it can be pretty hard to mwd burn back to the gate fast enough. The 50% bonus would give a second or two more time before being webbed/scrammed/pulverized and would significantlly increase the survivability of an AF trying to avoid a gate camp. I agree that for low-sec and AB fit is more common, but in 0.0 MWD are used to survive gatecamps and for that reason alone I like that change. As for the rest of the changes... they need some serious tweaking to be sure. |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
2705
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 20:59:00 -
[47] - Quote
To bad there is no such thing as web resisting bonuses in the game. :(
|
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
331
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:06:00 -
[48] - Quote
Flistir wrote:I'm surprised that people are still suggesting afterburner bonuses. I thought that the prenerf Dramiel would have made everyone learn what a bad idea it is to combine silly speeds with an afterburner.
The problem with the Dramiel was many things. Not just isolated to the AB.
Get educated please.
|
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:17:00 -
[49] - Quote
This boost is the easy way out.
Instead of adding a very uncreative role bonus and an extra slot, consider tweaking the stats of all ships so more creative setups are possible: slightly more CPU and PG would go a long way on many AFs. If that's still not good enough, tweak some hardpoints or try moving slots around.
If any ships are in need of extra slots it's the lower tier T1 frigates.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:30:00 -
[50] - Quote
AFTERBURNER FRIGATES DO NOT WORK.
If you can not go at least 2km/s (2.5-3km/s if you want to handle the best opponents), cruisers and battlecruisers are faster than you. Since they are faster than you, you can not orbit them (simple geometry). Transversal drops to near zero, and it doesn't matter how low your sig is, you're still getting hit by 500+ dps. Against a good BC/HAC, an AB assault frigate has a life expectancy of less than 15 seconds.
So, the problem with an afterburner bonus is simple:
If the bonus is small, AFs still suck (for PvP at least). They aren't fast enough with an AB, they still get kited, and you still have to fit a MWD on them. Except now your grid/CPU/cap are balanced around an AB you can't use, and CCP is convinced that AFs are "fixed" and won't give them a real boost.
If the bonus is large, as in enough to reach MWD speeds with only an AB, AFs become game-breaking. This is what happened with the last attempt to give them an AB bonus: they became too fast for their sig radius, and virtually immune to anything besides another frigate. And don't say this was because of the oversized ABs, any AB bonus that gives AFs enough speed to reduce damage from medium guns is going to have the same problem.
End result: AFs need to be balanced around fitting a MWD. |
|
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
97
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:32:00 -
[51] - Quote
The Retribution has tracking issues against other frigs in point blank range. It can't hit them properly even with Gatling Pulse Lasers (these are the laser with the highest tracking).
Maybe change the 5% tracking bonus to 7.5% that all other ships get? |
Caneb
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:33:00 -
[52] - Quote
MWD sig bonus? No thanks. In my opinion Assault Ships are meant to use afterburners.
That said, I wouldn't want an afterburner speed bonus, because as the Dramiel showed, doing 2k/s with 30m sig is just broken.
What I would want in assault ships is a decreased mass. As far as I know, there are few T2 ships that have much worse base stats than their T1 parents. Assault Frigates are an exception to this, having 20-30% larger mass (equaling worse agility and acceleration) across the board compared to their T1 counterparts.
Like everyone else, I think the role bonus needs to be rethought. How about a bonus to overheating? That would give AFs a way to close distance when using ABs, but without the danger of creating a ship that can be permanently unhittable.
As for specifics..
Vengeance looks good. With the RoF bonus it might actually do more damage with its intended weapon system than with autocannons as it does now.
A single midslot on the Retribution would be fine IF it was exceptionally good as a pure dps ship. As it is, a Wolf does more damage and can tackle. So in liu of a hefty damage boost, a second mid is welcome. The rest of the changes look good as well, as far as fitting numbers go.
Jaguar should have a falloff bonus, not an optimal bonus, because artillery/beams/rails on frigates in general is useless outside of some very specific comedy fits. Not sure what do do with the spare low slot, since most current fits are tight enough as it is. Extra nano I guess. The tracking bonus is gravy.
As for the Wolf I'm not sure if extra CPU is what's needed. A few more points of power grid would be more welcome so you could fit 200mm guns with a 400mm plate. Again, the extra low will be either a nano or maybe a tracking enhancer, which would fit even without the added CPU.
Hawk should get rid of its active tank bonus in favor of something else. A cap recharge bonus like the Vengeance would make it better at active tanking, while making it not completely useless if you opt for a buffer tank.
Ishkur needs the +10% drone damage bonus that all the other Gallente drone carriers have, OR the +5 drone bay bonus needs to include +5mbit bandwidth so it can use medium drones at high enough skill levels.
I've never flown the Enyo or Harpy so I won't comment on those. |
Malissin
The Highwaymen's Society
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:40:00 -
[53] - Quote
AF V crew checking in.
I see what you're trying to do here with the MWD Role bonus, but my thoughts are divided on what that will actually do to the ships. To those saying that MWDs are not useful to the denizens of lowsec, well that's just patently false. I regularly fly a fitting on both the Enyo and the Vengeance that uses them just fine...however, in a Solo PvP environment, I'm not sure how much use a sig reduction would be against Small or even Medium weapons. AFs having Small weapons themselves, thus fighting well within Scram/Web/Neut range, it doesn't seem like it would be doing much. In fleet engagements, it makes a bit more sense, but isn't that what Interceptors were made for?
As to all the various extra fitting slots; you're about to completely kill the AFs current target selection for solo PvP. All the buffs in the world don't matter if we just scare away potential targets now. As it is now, you can still find overconfident Rifter/Dramiel/Whatever pilots willing to take a shot at you, but I can't see that lasting long if the changes went through as proposed.
Just brainstorming here, but how about a resistance bonus to E-War? 10% per level or some such, so that Webs didn't slow you down as much, Neuts didn't drain your capacitor so hard, ECM had less chance to jam, etc...With that, you'd potentially get a heavy tackler that didn't step on the toes of the Interceptor. It wouldn't be as good at actually landing the tackle, but could hold on better once in Scram range. Barring that, as long as we're stealing bonuses from other ship classes, just give it the 5% reduction in heat buildup from T3s and call it a day. |
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
59
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:46:00 -
[54] - Quote
For those who have no idea about weapon tracking and such, an AF in scramble range is extremely difficult to hit. This is without an afterburner. The whole purpose of the MWD bonus was so that AFs could move around the battlefield without being blapped out of the sky.
As Merin states above, an AB bonus would either be too strong or too weak, there is no middle ground.
As far as I'm concerned with the MWD bonus, the AFs are working exactly as I had intended them to. They are quick, damaging, and tankable, while not immune to incoming damage. CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai |
Duke Thunderhorse
Black Rebel Rifter Club
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 21:52:00 -
[55] - Quote
The first time I flew an AF was in militia fleets where my role was explained as being the back-up for the interceptor pilot. The MWD bonus seems fitting and will finally give the assault frigate a defined role in larger fleets. Now all those F1 mashing gorillas in null sec can stop whining about the useless assault frig.
However, it is a bonus I will not use in lowsec solo PVP. I'd like to see a bonus that benefits both worlds... I'd also like a billion isk please.
As a Wolf pilot, I should be loving another low slot. 5 lows!? Seriously? The combinations are mind-blowing. Yeah nobody will fight me, but nobody fights me now. What I'd really like is an extra mid so I can fit ECCM for that inevitable lurking falcon alt. No seriously, please just leave these ships as they are. Maybe give the Retribution an extra mid... maybe... Or maybe make Amarr pilots continue to suffer. Idk/Idc. You already messed everything up with the changes to blasters. Please quit screwing with my life! Gosh! :-*
|
Bob Niac
Tears of Redemption NEM3SIS.
11
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:07:00 -
[56] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Hello
Please post your feedback about Assault Ship balancing in this thread.
Thank you.
The changes are:
All Assault Ships
* Added role bonus: 50% reduction in MicroWarpdrive signature radius penalty
Wait ... what? No ... Please .. less ships dependent on MWD, please. What about this:
Role Bonus for (example) Hawk: xx% Reduction in the power grid and xx% CPU need of modules that require Shield Upgrades. xx% reduction in capacitor need of shield boosters xx% reduction in cycle time of medium shield boosters.
And for Harpy:
Role Bonus xx% Reduction in the [grid and cpu] of Medium Hybrid Turrets. xx% Reduction in the capacitor need of Med Hybrid Turrets
OR ....
Harpy
Role Bonus: 99% Reduction in the Power grid need of Siege Modules 50% reduction on CPU requirements of Siege Modules 50% reduction in cycle time of Siege Modules 50% reduction in activation cost of Siege modules.
kind of partial to plan 'B' I <3 Logistics. Proud pilot of all 4 logi cruisers and my shiny Archon [deceased.] Also a Chimera which may or may not be horrible. |
Godcon
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:15:00 -
[57] - Quote
I guess this is a little biased because the only AF I fly is the Harpy and with a MWD I will always been in scram range making the buff nearly useless for me, unless I am in larger gangs or fleets. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
11
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:16:00 -
[58] - Quote
Godcon wrote:I guess this is a little biased because the only AF I fly is the Harpy and with a MWD I will always been in scram range making the buff nearly useless for me, unless I am in larger gangs or fleets.
How exactly do you plan to GET into range without a MWD?
The answer of course is you can't, and the MWD bonus allows you to take less damage approaching the target. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
223
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:31:00 -
[59] - Quote
I think the MWD boost is a bone thrown to soloers, because it's not hard to find an interceptor pilot who can fit a warp scrambler, turn off the MWD of an enemy, and have an afterburning assault frigate catch up or warp in and dispense own.
I think that going as far as saying AB assault frigates are worthless is dumb because this is a game where you can have multiple people (or an alt) on your side, in different ship classes. Scary, I know.
I have yet to actually test the new buffs so I will reserve judgement on whether this is a good or bad fourth buff. But I would like to see this buff be put across the board rather than just for MWDs to make both types of fittings more viable. |
Wot I Think
State War Academy Caldari State
205
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 22:32:00 -
[60] - Quote
IMHO, in terms of Assault Frigates the appropriate buff would be: cutting the production cost by 75%.
THE MWD thing is neat, but don't care.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |