| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Reply to Topic | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
60
    |
Posted - 2012.01.06 08:59:00 -
[91] - Quote
@ Marlona
When it's an idea like giving AB speed, then yes. I will fight that idea to the end as it does not work with the current EVE mechanics. Until someone can tell me how it isn't broken and is still useful for the majority, I will have that stance.
Combat interceptors would be ideal for countering T1 frigates & EAFs (if EAFs were boosted). AFs can never be that fast, agile, or cap stable when it comes to long range tackle.
@ Volstruis
Nothing is stopping you low sec pilots from using afterburners.
ALL your fits are getting better, and you're gaining a bonus that you may not use.
On the other hand, for the rest of the pvp community (read: majority) will gain a class of ships that is actually usable outside of empire space. The MWD change is an enormous boost to the ships, and if you're not going to use that, then that's your decision.
As for AFs being "heavy tacklers" , they aren't so much the tackle, as they are the tools for taking apart the enemy.
So if you have a frigate gang composed interceptors, af, and eaf; The interceptors tackle, the EAFs do the ewar, and the AF do the damage.
@ Plutonian
Sure you would like those things removed from the game, you live in low sec 
I say the things I say because people are constantly beating a dead horse without actually looking at the stats behind it.
@ Kaedea
It's true, AFs are countered by support ships. Be it other AFs, Destroyers, or Interdictors.
However, I will say that you underestimate the strength of AF tanks and Nosferatus
edit:
@ Takeshi
Like I said, I agree with you somewhat about the damage/tracking trade off.
However, I've been doing pretty good with the Retribution only losing one to an Ishkur so far 
Don't forget that you're probably using Conflag (nuke tracking) or normal T1 crystals (crappy), so the true capabilities of the ship aren't entirely obvious. Balancing will be done and CCP is monitoring this thread
As for the utility high slot, it's exactly that, utility. You can fit a nos/neut if you wish, but it's not terribly uncommon to see the ships in w-space with a prober or even a remote rep for post-fights. I personally fit a nos because since it's only got 2 mids, it's hard to dictate range against neuting frigates or larger ships. The nos keep my guns and tackle going 
CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai |
Kaeda Maxwell
Black Rebel Rifter Club
36
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 09:26:00 -
[92] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
[b]@ KaedeaIt's true, AFs are countered by support ships. Be it other AFs, Destroyers, or Interdictors. However, I will say that you underestimate the strength of AF tanks and Nosferatus
I know very well how tanky they are (my favourite AF is an afterburner AC+Nos fitted vengeance, it can tank ungodly amounts of damage).
My worry is the fact that with all the extra fitting buffs on top of the MWD bonus lowsec PvP will become incredibly stale. As these changes as they are written down here will make them massively outperform a lot of ships used in lowsec.
No longer will you have a fighting chance in a T1 frig (It's hard now but a capable Rifter/Merlin/Tristan or even Incurses pilot CAN kill a AF) suddenly cruisers you needed to be careful engaging like Ruptures, Thoraxes, Celestises are totally valid targets that you will kill (arbi's would still be hard because of the prevalence of neuts on them).
And with mwd buffed AF's Stabbers and Omens, while quite hard still viable ships to fly now, just became essentially flying coffins.
Short of the Thrasher (and a Cormorant in capable hands) these buffs just made the other dessies useless again. And in a lot of the AF's as posted here I would make very short work of light dictors too, including even the Sabre.
Basically what the argument boils down to from my side yes this will make AF's viable in null but it will make them massively overpowered in solo situations.
Ergo; You can have the MWD buff if you must to make them vaible but all the other extra buffs (bar the mid on the retri) are just to much.
I'd be much happier if CCP just implemented the MWD bonus first and then went from there (if needed at all), instead of this massive monster buff all at once. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
240
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 09:27:00 -
[93] - Quote
Why in heaven's name are you going ahead with this? Have you intentionally ignored all the threads spawned after the Chaos leak?
YOU CANNOT add combat capability to AFs without wiping out T1 cruiser viability. Some of them are already dangerously close to higher-tier cruiser performance (real world performance, not paper!).
YOU CANNOT add combat capability to AFs without demolishing viability of all T1 frigates (except Griffs) and destroyers (except Trash, 'cause :alpha:).
You are severely dumbing down offensive ship choice for small gangs. With combat boosted AFs as proposed it will be "tier2 BC or AF, else GTFO".
Where is the fun in that?
Take a look at the other T2 frigates and try to figure out why they work .. here is a hint: Roles.
Interceptors work because they are fast and provide extended range tackle .. balance: fragile
Bombers work because they are cloak'n'dagger and provide face-melt .. balance: fragile, limited target selection.
EAS work (could be better though!) because they provide Recon capabilities to the light gang .. balance: fragile, slow'ish.
How the hell do think AF's will work if all you do is make them into small speedy cruisers? The apple-cart will most upset, young man!
Common sense. Logic. Deductive reasoning...Look them up, very handy tools for just about anything. |
Svennig
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 09:41:00 -
[94] - Quote
Kalaratiri wrote:
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?
No. Rockets are utter fail on a ship that's setup for long-range kiting. That's like putting arty on a vagabond. Plus, you're using a MAPC AND a ACRI AND a goddamn 2% fitting implant. One fitting mod maybe, but two (in effect, three)? Nope. Fail.
Kalaratiri wrote:
EDIT:
Actually read the rest of your post. What?
..Why? What do you need that much extra CPU for?
I guess that everyone's coming at Assault Ships from a really different design perspective, because right now they have no design perspective. Mine is that they are the baby brother of HACs. So with that in mind, CCP have added a mid slot. What are you going to put in it? An MSE? You need 25 more CPU. An invuln? You need 44. What are you going to put in there with +10 CPU (so, +12.5 after skills)? Bearing in mind that it's now got a tanking bonus.
The rest of the CPU is a little tricky to explain. My standard harpy fit with ions (and t2, no meta) comes at 107% CPU. So, basically, you have to use a Co-processor II to get it to fit. Now, at this point, you've traded out a magstab because you don't want to lose the DCII, so you've lost a lot of DPS and the CPII allows you to upgrade the guns to neutrons to even it out.
My suggestion is that the harpy should be able to field ions while t2 fit without a fitting mod, to avoid this "ions get stepped over" problem.
Kalaratiri wrote:Svennig wrote: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. What? Active tanked hawk is at least as good as a dual rep Vengeance, if not better due to more dps. You might be trying to use a small booster. Don't, switch to medium. Svennig wrote:Jaguar: needs to get a midslot rather than a low. What..? Why?
I don't care about 1v1 vs other assault frigates. I'm interested in how these will work out as small-medium harassment gangs. And those will not be active tanked. Especially on a ship which, if fit as you suggest, has to engage within enemy neut range.
As for the midslot on the jag I think that the jag is fine now without any additional slots. But if you're going to throw one at me I'd rather have a midslot. The jag is a natural shield tanker, and an additional mid would allow for dual-prop, or for a hardener, or a damp or pretty much anything. What am I going to do with another low? Another gyrostabilizer that, at 30 CPU, I can't afford?
|
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 09:47:00 -
[95] - Quote
Lets get a few things straight:
Currently, if an well equipped AB AF manages to get a tackle on a cruiser, it's a free kill for the frigate.
These changes would not change the fact. In fact, if people were to MWD fit AFs would make it easier for cruisers to kill them at in scramble range.
Cruisers were mentioned, and it's a well known fact that some of the lower tier cruisers need a boost. That's understandable.
However, you can now consider those cruiser that were *weaker* as ships that now work really really well for countering AFs.
For example; Try fitting an armor Bellicose or Arbitrator. It's not big of damage, but has 4 mids for tackle or tp, and roughly double the hitpoint of any AF.
Yes, they may have reasonably high dps & tanks for frigates, but they are still frigates. Which means frigate sensor strength, frigate lock range, and frigate capacitor.
Destroyers counter AFs. If you have trouble taking down support in destroyers, it's player related.
ALL the destroyer hulls are extremely capable and when fit accordingly, are a huge threat.
As for AFs replacing cruisers, I don't see that happening. There are certain things that cruisers offer that frigates simply do not. If you need me to explain what those advantages are, you don't really have much to say about AF/Cruiser balance.
And finally, complaining that AFs beat t1 frigates.
I'm not sure how to approach this as you're arguing the combat ability of an (essentially) free ship vs a ship that requires significantly more time, money, risk, & skill invested. T2 frigates should always trump T1 frigates.
CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai |
Xi 'xar
Mise en Abyme
9
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 09:49:00 -
[96] - Quote
@Vol - U MAD?
@Prom - U STOOPID?
Seriously prom. Either think harder or be less obvious about your attempted double bind arguments. Although everything you have said is correct, you fail to address the true issue. You are either stoopid or very good at deflection.
Of course all the ships / fits are being buffed, whether or not the MWD bonus is going to be used by any individual pilot. This will happen to even ship spinning carebears who refuse to undock!
The Mwd bonus is the issue here, not the rest of the buffs. I'm pretty sure everyone likes having their ships buffed (other than a certain Mr Bull).
Of course, as you so brightly point out, nothing is stopping lowsec pilots from using afterburners on AFs. Of course, as you also say, if they do, they won't gain the "enormous boost to the ships" that you are talking about. Way to prove our point (which, btw, is that the MWD bonus, being an enormous boost, is essentially useless to a certain group of people who love flying AFs).
Btw, and I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but you can also fit lazors to rifters, even though they don't have a bonus to said lazors!
To clarify - what Vol, and other solo / small gang lowsec pvp'rs are complaining about is that the MWD bonus doesn't add up for them. Sure, its great for nulsec. Its probably great for medium to large gang fights anwhere. However, it is pretty much useless for lowsec, especially in a solo / small gang environment. Telling us that "well, we don't have to use it" is stupid and is a lame argument. Please don't be stupid and lame.
Now go back to nulsec and shoot rats and make bucketloads of isk while us poor iskless lowsec fighterpilots lament the uselessness of the MWD bonus.
@FEEDBACK
Lowsec hasn't had a "buff" or change to the incentive to go there for ages (if ever).
Considering that AFs are (other than the hurricane or drake) the ship of choice for a huge amount of solo /small gang lowsec pvp pilots, I'm not surprised that the people who have invested their time, effort and money into solo / small gang pvping in lowsec are dissapointed that some of their favourite ships (AFs), which they were desperately hoping would be buffed in a way which would make them awesomesauce in lowsec, have instead been buffed in a way which is essentially useless to them in the environment of their choice.
Its great that CCP loves nulsec. But, CCP - please have some sympathy - us lowseccers have missed a lot of love. We would love a bonus to AFs that makes them even better in lowsec... but because we are such happy go lucky folk, we would actually be happy with a bonus that doesn't only help people in nulsec.
I'm not going to look at the other bonuses because frankly, I don't care. AFs are now probably OP. Yay!
http://reduplication.wordpress.com/category/explore-low-sec/
http://reduplication.wordpress.com/category/live-low-sec/
http://mrsnypes.blogspot.com/2010/07/burnt-lands.html
|
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 10:00:00 -
[97] - Quote
Feel free to come up with a well thought out idea that would benefit everybody.
It seems that a (rather small) number of folks want an AB bonus, without actually looking at the stats.
Not everyone fits ABs, and not everyone fits MWDs.
The difference is that a bonus to one (AB) is too powerful a tool, and a bonus to the other (MWD) is not.
These changes aren't making your beloved AB fits an less capable (moreso infact), so you really don't have anything to complain about. In the same vein, I called it an "enormous boost" because when you compare that to how woefully terrible they are right now, that's exactly what it is. If you're truly concerned that there will be a immeasurable number of MWD AFs in your low sec, then start practicing, because AB fits typically trump MWD fits no matter what the ship class.
You really haven't got anything to complain about.
CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai |
Volstruis
Mise en Abyme
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 10:11:00 -
[98] - Quote
Edit: @Xar Yes. And thanks for having the energy to say the things I did not have the energy to say. And so eloquently! I approve.
I just hope the warranted insultery doesn't cloud the impeccable logic. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
211
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 10:24:00 -
[99] - Quote
I'm a little concerned that these changes seem to be based on 'lets just make assault frigs better' rather than any obviously defined role for them, and that in the already crowded frigate range, what assault ships need is a niche of their own to occupy more than a 4th bonus or an extra fitting slot (though these things are nice to have). Let's take a step back:
What is the intended role of the Assault Frigs?
How is this distinct from the intended role of Interceptors? Or Faction Frigs? Or Destroyers? Or T1 Cruisers?
What sort of bonuses would give Assault Frigs a distinct role that doesn't overlap with those of the shiptypes above? Are the new bonuses listed itt compatible with this role?
Once we have an idea of the theory and the intended role, we will be in a better position to comment, but right now I'm not seeing a coherent plan, just a list of individual buffs, and in particular the MWD role bonus which mirrors the existing T2 hull bonus granted to interceptors a little too closely for my liking.
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Calistai Huranu
Gaping Axe Wound Promotions
16
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 10:40:00 -
[100] - Quote
Loving the changes, sooner these hit TQ the better tbh, yes the Retri could do with a few tweek's still, but otherwise so far they've been a joy to fly.
|
|
Volstruis
Mise en Abyme
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 10:40:00 -
[101] - Quote
My role bonus suggestion is to make them mini command ships. This does benefit everybody.
There I've said it. |
Kaeda Maxwell
Black Rebel Rifter Club
36
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 11:07:00 -
[102] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Feel free to come up with a well thought out idea that would benefit everybody.
It seems that a (rather small) number of folks want an AB bonus, without actually looking at the stats.
Not everyone fits ABs, and not everyone fits MWDs.
The difference is that a bonus to one (AB) is too powerful a tool, and a bonus to the other (MWD) is not.
These changes aren't making your beloved AB fits an less capable (moreso infact), so you really don't have anything to complain about. In the same vein, I called it an "enormous boost" because when you compare that to how woefully terrible they are right now, that's exactly what it is. If you're truly concerned that there will be a immeasurable number of MWD AFs in your low sec, then start practicing, because AB fits typically trump MWD fits no matter what the ship class.
You really haven't got anything to complain about.
Ok, get this; They aren't terrible. They are terrible in fleet roles. But AF's as such are not terrible as they are. This thread has a lot of people that fly them solo A LOT and are telling you they aren't bad. A lot of those people can show you killboards that will confirm their claims.
Also who are you to tell me what I get to complain about? I think AF's are fine the way they are, so do apparently a lot of other people who fly them right now and do well in them.
By making them massively more powerful, CCP is heavily impacting the face of lowsec PvP and a well established sub-culture within EVE namely that off solo frigate PVP'ers. As the people actually flying these ships I think we have a right to speak our minds about it, not in the least because we're very experienced in them. Some other lowsec pvp'ers have different opinions that's also fine.
As to the argument that because something takes more skill points and is more expensive it should stomp on anything that requires less of either, that's an excellent way to murder entry level PvP (for all of those who don't dream of being hero tackle for a massive nullsec blob) and little else. It's also not currently true of EVE in any way at all, plenty of battlecruisers will walk all over much more expensive and skill point intensive T2 ships in a solo encounter. I killed a 150mil+ Sacrilege in a 45mil Cyclone only last week, by your logic therefore T2 cruisers should be buffed... right?.
I understand an AB bonus would be bad, I've said that before, I am willing to admit a MWD bonus would prolly help them lots in null so go for it, I am yet to hear any good arguments as to WHY they need the other buffs and WHY they need to be implemented simultaneously. |
Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 11:24:00 -
[103] - Quote
Loving the general concept here, including the MWD bonus. It will also be much more useful on these than on ceptors because of the slower overall speeds and GTFO options. (And let's face it, the AB bonus would have been so OP) Buffing them makes them nicely in line with the new dessies as well. Of course my newly buffed Taranis will lose some of it's edge but hey I get cool new toys instead! (And ceptors could use some tiny loving as well)
IMHO it's the benefit of everyone to mix game balance in any case, after this CCP could either look at nerfing the Tier 2 BCs or buffing ceptors and T1 cruisers, or both. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
357
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 11:51:00 -
[104] - Quote
since I left my opinion in a previous thread, I'm gonna copy-pasta myself here:
Quote:Grimpak wrote:Zagdul wrote:Sig bonus just copies inty's and doesn't seem to really add anything new to the game. yes, it steps on inties' toes a bit, altho they will still be faster. it is, however, kinda hard to add something "new" to the game, considering the multitude of roles we already have filled in. The major issue of AF's was and will always be that they don't have a defined role. no, they aren't "designed to tackle bigger ships at ultra-short ranges", they were designed around the concept of being frigates that could dish damage and soak it too. a "frigate-sized frigate predator" of sorts, or frigate-sized heavy bruiser if you wish to call it like so. Issue was that when they were released, cruisers sorta did this role quite well already, for a fraction of the cost. and to complicate stuff even more, they were released with 1 less bonus than any other tier2 hulls that existed before. then HACs came out and some of them were much better at the roles AFs were supposed to fill in, and to add insult to injury, CCP introduced the disposable frigate swatters known as "destroyers", which, altho they were only made non-sucky in Crucible, they were much more cost effective than AF's, and the thrasher in specific, could go toe-to-toe with even AF's and win in the end. so yeah, before even starting to add bonuses and role bonuses and all that, what AF's need is an actual role, something that is very hard considering that the only thing the frigate lineup lacks in terms of roles atm is a gas harvesting frigate, and the AF role of being the "bruiser" is already occupied with the newly boosted destroyers or any other T1 cruiser.. 
in addition, the proposed changes aren't bad. they become a bit more like HACs (like they should've been in the first place). all they need is a bit more space, fittings wise, and I still think the retri should've had a 5th turret.
[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote]
ain't that right |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
98
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:14:00 -
[105] - Quote
Raimo wrote:Loving the general concept here, including the MWD bonus. It will also be much more useful on these than on ceptors because of the slower overall speeds and GTFO options. (And let's face it, the AB bonus would have been so OP) Buffing them makes them nicely in line with the new dessies as well. Of course my newly buffed Taranis will lose some of it's edge but hey I get cool new toys instead! (And ceptors could use some tiny loving as well)
IMHO it's the benefit of everyone to mix game balance in any case, after this CCP could either look at nerfing the Tier 2 BCs or buffing ceptors and T1 cruisers, or both.
I wholeheartedly agree on a tier 2 BC nerf and cruiser buff.
The thing with tier 2 BCs is that they do everything well. They need to be vulnerable and have a weakness. This can be done by making it difficult, or a real tradeoff, to fit (medium) neutralizers on them. This will make them vulnerable to frigates and active tanked HACs of the opposing faction while still leaving them as the good dps/tank package they are.
Only problem with this idea is that BCs are also supposed to fit ganglinks, which is why they have utility highs in the first place. Perhaps the answer is a powergrid reduction plus powergrid requirement reduction role bonus for gang links?
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
240
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:37:00 -
[106] - Quote
@Prom: Get the feeling you have very little experience with small fast gangs. Do you really believe that the very fragile balance on the sub-BC small gang scene will be fine when you add slots, tank plus applied damage to the hulls right smack in the middle of the ship line-ups?
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Feel free to come up with a well thought out idea that would benefit everybody....
Already did, numerous times in the relevant threads.
Split them up in utility/combat and give them primarily non-combat related bonuses:
- Utility gets 20%/lvl RR (both!) efficiency and 150%/lvl RR range = All four races get a shield+armour (maximum versatility) RR frigate with a 40km+ range where each small RR performs like a medium.
- The remaining four get CPU/Grid fitting bonus to be able to field gang links, will be godly when links are made on-grid (you know its coming, common sense is a biatch!), in the meantime they could get a combat bonus .. temporarily!
Gives them value/purpose on the small as well as the large scale, doesn't translate into yet another Winmatar FTW! change AND nimbly avoids destroying what remains of balance in the sub-BC classes. |
Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:39:00 -
[107] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:@Prom: Get the feeling you have very little experience with small fast gangs. Do you really believe that the very fragile balance on the sub-BC small gang scene will be fine when you add slots, tank plus applied damage to the hulls right smack in the middle of the ship line-ups? Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Feel free to come up with a well thought out idea that would benefit everybody.... Already did, numerous times in the relevant threads. Split them up in utility/combat and give them primarily non-combat related bonuses: - Utility gets 20%/lvl RR (both!) efficiency and 150%/lvl RR range = All four races get a shield+armour (maximum versatility) RR frigate with a 40km+ range where each small RR performs like a medium. - The remaining four get CPU/Grid fitting bonus to be able to field gang links, will be godly when links are made on-grid (you know its coming, common sense is a biatch!), in the meantime they could get a combat bonus .. temporarily! Gives them value/purpose on the small as well as the large scale, doesn't translate into yet another Winmatar FTW! change AND nimbly avoids destroying what remains of balance in the sub-BC classes.
Such a bad post on so many levels |
Xi 'xar
Mise en Abyme
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:43:00 -
[108] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Feel free to come up with a well thought out idea that would benefit everybody.
It seems that a (rather small) number of folks want an AB bonus, without actually looking at the stats.
Not everyone fits ABs, and not everyone fits MWDs.
The difference is that a bonus to one (AB) is too powerful a tool, and a bonus to the other (MWD) is not.
These changes aren't making your beloved AB fits an less capable (moreso infact), so you really don't have anything to complain about. In the same vein, I called it an "enormous boost" because when you compare that to how woefully terrible they are right now, that's exactly what it is. If you're truly concerned that there will be a immeasurable number of MWD AFs in your low sec, then start practicing, because AB fits typically trump MWD fits no matter what the ship class.
You really haven't got anything to complain about.
I think you might have missed the point.
The complaint re: the MWD bonus is that it is focused on benefiting the nulsec community and ignores the solo / small gang lowsec community.
As you said, not everyone fits ABs and not everyone fits MWDs.
For this reason I would rather see a bonus which does not rely on the fitting of a certain module.
For example (and entirely off of the top of my head (and in no way is this a suggestion as to what the bonus should be) a level dependant bonus to speed for all AFs (say 5% per level of assault ships skill) would boost the speedyness of AB, MWD, dual prop and no-prop fits whether those fits are found in low, nul, hsec or w/h space. If you want speedy ships that seems to be a better solution than requiring that certain modules be fit in order for a role to be fulfilled. It also deals with the apparently (I have no idea) overpowered AB boost vs Mwd boost and benifits everyone who uses AFs except ship spinners.
FYI I'm entirely unconcerned about there being an immeasuarble number of MWD fits in lowsec (not my lowsec btw, although thanks for the pedestal). I do love variety.
Oh, and if you think AFs are vastly underpowered, well, I can always use this argument: If you don't like AFs, dont use them! :P
http://reduplication.wordpress.com/category/explore-low-sec/
http://reduplication.wordpress.com/category/live-low-sec/
http://mrsnypes.blogspot.com/2010/07/burnt-lands.html
|
Sakkar Arenith
PIE Inc.
34
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:46:00 -
[109] - Quote
Great improvements, especially the overheating ones!
while youre at it though, could you possibly add the option to select an ammo switch while a gun or module is running?
its highly annoying to first deactive a gun or a tracking computer, and then switch, and then active again.
cheers! |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc.
No Holes Barred
98
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:48:00 -
[110] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote:Feel free to come up with a well thought out idea that would benefit everybody.... Already did, numerous times in the relevant threads. Split them up in utility/combat and give them primarily non-combat related bonuses: - Utility gets 20%/lvl RR (both!) efficiency and 150%/lvl RR range = All four races get a shield+armour (maximum versatility) RR frigate with a 40km+ range where each small RR performs like a medium. - The remaining four get CPU/Grid fitting bonus to be able to field gang links, will be godly when links are made on-grid (you know its coming, common sense is a biatch!), in the meantime they could get a combat bonus .. temporarily!
Sorry but this is a pretty terrible idea. There is no reason to give up on combat focused AFs. There are people posting in this thread who are using them right now as they are.
While I do think there might be room for frigate sized logistics, that should be separate line of ships, and most importantly, before it happens the other frigates should be fixed. |
|
Ilik Tanikalot
Black Rebel Rifter Club
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:49:00 -
[111] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:...
It seems that a (rather small) number of folks want an AB bonus, without actually looking at the stats.
Not everyone fits ABs, and not everyone fits MWDs.
The difference is that a bonus to one (AB) is too powerful a tool, and a bonus to the other (MWD) is not.
...
Actually, if you recheck you'll find that these folks want neither an AB nor a MWD bonus.
The whole matter boils down to the role the ship's supposed to have. No one is crying about Inties having a MWD bonus, why? Because they are meant to catch stuff and hold down. Using them in an AB setting, predominantly in lo-sec is something people accept; also due to the fact that people flying such setups forfeits the intended role which leads to balance.
The role of AFs however is not to be a primary catcher as you pointed out, but as a damage platform (be it tank / gank focused is another matter). The MWD bonus is however only tangentially in line with that role, via making your approach faster & safer. While doing so you open up the very real possibility of the MWD-AF cutting into the role of the Inty, aka being a good catcher and still retaining all the capabilities of the role intendend, namely tank & gank.
I understand that this might make your personal playstyle in 0.0 more interesting/viable/whatnot. This package of changes (with or without the MWD bonus) will make AFs in lo-sec overpowered to a certain extent and will lead to less diversity in ships flown and also quite potentially less people willing to fight in general. Right now there is a decent mix of used ships out in lo-sec, buffing AFs like proposed carries the very real possibility of making lo-sec AF&BC galore.
Cheers,
Ilik Tanikalot
|
Prometheus Exenthal
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:51:00 -
[112] - Quote
Sakkar Arenith wrote:Great improvements, especially the overheating ones!
while youre at it though, could you possibly add the option to select an ammo switch while a gun or module is running?
its highly annoying to first deactive a gun or a tracking computer, and then switch, and then active again.
cheers!
first good idea in this thread 
CSM Alternate & PVP Samurai |
Tomytronic
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
46
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 12:52:00 -
[113] - Quote
Hey Tallest, mind telling us just what the hell you want Assault Frigates to do?
People can - and will - bicker about potential changes to any ship until the cows come home, but without a definition of what exactly assault frigates are supposed to do in the game, it's all just so much hot air.
So do you fancy letting us know where you think assault frigates fit in the game, and how this is different to other ships' purposes?
Otherwise we'll just have a bunch more people calling Prom names, and that's not particularly helpful to the debate. |
Tawa Suyo
The Tuskers
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 13:18:00 -
[114] - Quote
So, spent several hours last night testing the new changes on SiSi with corpmates/random players. Definitely liking the direction these have taken AFs in. As for feedback;
Please keep the MWD sig bonus
It serves a dual purpose, firstly, it gives AFs a role in fleets as a heavy tackler for chasing down and scramming nano ships while holding them down long enough for the rest of the fleet to catch up. This was proved last night by a corpmate chasing and catching a vaga that was laming on our dueling from 40km away without the AF getting blown out the sky. They still won't obsolete interceptors since they remain better at permanently holding point on a target while outranging med/heavy neuts and avoiding incoming dps with speed/sig tanking. Interceptors stop things ever warping away, AFs hold something still while surviving dps/neuts (ie, fit a nos) long enough for it to be dogpiled before they have to gtfo.
Secondly, it actually makes AFs viable as solo ships in nullsec. As it stands currently you can't get clear of a bubble before being locked and scrammed, you can't split a gang across the grid without being popped from 50-100km away by larger ships, hell, half the time you can't even get enough speed up before being scrammed to make it back to the gate to jump out. Reducing the MWD sig bloom fixes these issues.
No, it doesn't hugely affect lowsec frigate 1v1s, but it does expand the usage of AFs beyond _just_ lowsec 1v1s. An AB will still be better for dictating range within scram, so lowsec brawlers will still fit those (obvious exceptions like the wolf aside). Yes, this means you're not using the role bonus, but neither are those ab/web ranises you see and they don't seem to mind since it makes their ship viable in other areas of the game.
As for wanting an AB bonus, this can only be being proposed by people who either want another easy mode Dramiel or just don't understand frigate pvp. Replacing the MWD sig bonus with an AB bonus _would_ break frigate pvp balance, no-one would be able to range control an AF within scram range and would lead to no other frigates being seen again. It'd also lead to a stream of dead BCs and Cruisers since they'd never be able to either evade an AF or stand a chance at killing it once tackled.
All the other changes seem good with the exception of some slight tweaks in the numbers;
- Currently the Enyo has too much tank for the level of gank it has (although I'm assured this is already being addressed).
- The Jag is woefully weak compared to the other AFs with the tank/gank ratio being out of line with the rest of the AF lineup. It's possible to do some nice things with an arty Jag, but it's still less versatile and somewhat weak compared to the other AFs.
Personally I favour swapping the optimal bonus for a tank bonus (shield resists possibly), it would bring the tank/gank ratio in line with the other ships (erring on the side of tank obviously) as well as helping it in usage as a heavy tackler (something the Jag is already the best suited for amongst the AFs due to its inherent speed).
- I'd also quite like the ability to fit a repper on my wolf without sacrificing tank/gank (useful on those 100j roams without the ability to dock), ie, an addition 4 cpu/pg, but that might unbalance pure buffer 1v1 fits, so I'm sure I can cope without.
-And I'm told by people actually able to fly it that the retribution could use some (very, very, very) minor improvement but having not flown it myself I can't entirely comment.
As for the claims that this will ruin lowsec frigate pvp, I fail to see how. Slicers/Dramiels/Daredevils/combat inties (ie, most of the none AF frigates you see in lowsec) can still happily beat these if flown well. The only faction frig I'd have any concerns about is the Hookbill since it's more directly impacted by the Hawk now having the 5 mid slot levels of control, but even then, the Hookbill has a speed and range advantage which is a thoroughly exploitable niche (and is better than the current where the Hookbill effectively obsoletes the Hawk in lowsec). Oh, and Cruors are actually more viable now since they are very effective at countering the increased number of AFs you'll see using cap based weapons.
And the idea that this renders T1 frigates worthless is ridiculous, as it stands currently the only way a T1 frig can beat an AF is if the AF is badly fit or flown. Yes, we've all done it, but that proves nothing about actual balance just that there are bad players in eve. T1 frigates will still be perfectly viable for new players to learn in since there will always be other T1 frigate pilots and bad players in 'better' ships for them to fight.
These changes balance the AFs within the overall lineup so you'll see more than the huge Jag/Ishkur/Vengeance bias you see now with the occaisional Wolf/Harpy thrown in. They'll lead to an increase of the variety of AFs being seen in lowsec while still retaining the viability of other frigates. That hardly sounds like stagnation to me.
And you get to use them in both fleets and solo in nullsec with the MWD bonus, opening up their usage to entire new parts of the game than just lowsec frigate dueling.
Just please, don't remove the MWD sig bloom based on conjecture. Don't add an AB bonus or web immunity bonus (oh god that idea) based on the opinions of people who don't understand frigate pvp. And please, please test these things out for yourselves before claiming the changes are bad.
I would of course like to see the opinions of others ~based on SiSi testing~ (not based on EFT warrioring and random conjecture please). My corp is well known for only flying battleships with falcon support in highsec war decs, so our testing of these ships may not be relevant to lowsec/frigate pvp.
Oh, and anyone who can't fit an excellent hawk (either buffer or active) after these changes is bad at ships. |
Volstruis
Mise en Abyme
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 13:23:00 -
[115] - Quote
Tomytronic wrote:Otherwise we'll just have a bunch more people calling Prom names, and that's not particularly helpful to the debate.
The reason for this is because he refuses to acknowledge the effect of this role bonus and buffs on low sec pvp and tells us we're idiots for thinking the way we are, despite the fact that many people here have flown AF's pretty much exclusively in low sec for their entire careers. He then tells us he doesn't really care since we are a vast minority and should just deal with how awesome his ideas are.
We are then told our ideas and suggestions are stupid (in a feedback thread lol).
This is hardly helpful to the debate.
What would be helpful would be listening to people who love and fly these ships day in and day out.
|
Doctor Genocide
Black Rebel Rifter Club
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 13:27:00 -
[116] - Quote
Suggestions:
1) Rename Assault Ships GG#Assault FrigatesGG% and then leave them alone
2) Create a GG#Heavy Assault FrigateGG% class with attributes akin to the buffed Assault Ships proposed by CCP Tallest / Prometheus
3) Rename Heavy Assault Ships GG#Heavy Assault CruisersGG%
Down the line you could consider creating an GG#Assault CruiserGG% class, rather than buffing T1 cruisers too high.
Frigate-Assault Frigate-Heavy Assault Frigate
Cruiser-Assault Cruiser-Heavy Assault Cruiser
|
Tawa Suyo
The Tuskers
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 13:30:00 -
[117] - Quote
Volstruis wrote:effect of this role bonus and buffs on low sec pvp
Um... doesn't make a difference either way (while making them viable in null) and increases the variety of ships you'll see in lowsec respectively?
Volstruis wrote:What would be helpful would be listening to people who love and fly these ships day in and day out.
Hi, sounds like me tbh. And based on testing, the changes are good. Have you flown them yet? |
Volstruis
Mise en Abyme
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 13:31:00 -
[118] - Quote
Tawa Suyo wrote:My corp is well known for only flying battleships with falcon support in highsec war decs, so our testing of these ships may not be relevant to lowsec/frigate pvp.
|
Tawa Suyo
The Tuskers
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 13:31:00 -
[119] - Quote
Volstruis wrote:Tawa Suyo wrote:My corp is well known for only flying battleships with falcon support in highsec war decs, so our testing of these ships may not be relevant to lowsec/frigate pvp.
Um...
lol?
So, you don't get that was a joke, yet you're an expert on lowsec frigates? |
IntegralHellsing
Eternity INC.
Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 13:34:00 -
[120] - Quote
Quote:Harpy
* Added bonus: -5% bonus to shield resistances
You mean +5% to shield resistance bonus on Harpy, not -5%  |
|
|
|
| |
Reply to Topic |
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |