Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Arronicus
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 21:37:00 -
[451]
Originally by: Allen Ramses Edited by: Allen Ramses on 02/10/2009 03:58:05 FFS, a 25% AB/MWD role bonus to AF/HAC is what you're looking for, not a 75% AB bonus to AFs.
Give them a REAL 4th bonus.
Ok, let me get this straight. If Assault frigates are in need of improvement, then a bonus to assault frigate afterburner speed is not a real bonus, but a bonus to afterburner and microwarp drive speed to assault frigs and hacs, IS a real bonus? Please tell me that was typed at three in the morning? Thats like saying, painting your car isnt improving it, painting your car AND my car is improving it. this post is a discussion on AFs, not HACS, which were speed reduced because they used to go way too fast. Some still have MWD bonuses. as for giving AF's MWD bonuses, the ships were specifically designed to be used with ABs, not MWDs. Given that AB's rely on their small signature radius, and dont have the cap gen for mwds tied in with their tank, not to mention that mwds would make them dead in the event of scramblers, cause you know, they WANT to be up close, I would have to say that MWD bonus would be a useless joke, and as such, a 25% bonus to AB/MWD role is stupid.
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.02 22:38:00 -
[452]
Originally by: Arronicus
Originally by: Allen Ramses Edited by: Allen Ramses on 02/10/2009 03:58:05 FFS, a 25% AB/MWD role bonus to AF/HAC is what you're looking for, not a 75% AB bonus to AFs.
Give them a REAL 4th bonus.
Ok, let me get this straight. If Assault frigates are in need of improvement, then a bonus to assault frigate afterburner speed is not a real bonus, but a bonus to afterburner and microwarp drive speed to assault frigs and hacs, IS a real bonus? Please tell me that was typed at three in the morning? Thats like saying, painting your car isnt improving it, painting your car AND my car is improving it. this post is a discussion on AFs, not HACS, which were speed reduced because they used to go way too fast. Some still have MWD bonuses. as for giving AF's MWD bonuses, the ships were specifically designed to be used with ABs, not MWDs. Given that AB's rely on their small signature radius, and dont have the cap gen for mwds tied in with their tank, not to mention that mwds would make them dead in the event of scramblers, cause you know, they WANT to be up close, I would have to say that MWD bonus would be a useless joke, and as such, a 25% bonus to AB/MWD role is stupid.
But wait a moment now; why should AFs get a free ride? Something which gives almost the bonus of a MWD but without the downsides? That is broken.
Consider the, eg. Taranis. It's a point blank ship, so it has three choices; either go for the MWD fit, but then vs AB+scrambler ships, it cannot guarantee that it will be in useful range ever, and it comes at fitting and cap penalties. It can go with a AB fit, but then it will have problems catching ships, and is vulnerable to being kited by MWD ships; on the other hand, it has a smaller sig and in scram range speed, plus easier cap/fitting. It can go with a dual-prop fit (which is actually reasonably good!), but that's both very hard on fitting and takes a extra slot.
It's what you call choices.
Now, here's something which might strike you as odd: a good number of AFs were NOT designed as point blank in your face ships. Take the Harpy, for instance; it was obviously designed to use range. To maintain range and to serve a useful role it needs the sort of speed a AB even post patch won't provide, and will find itself caught and killed by a AB Jaguar, of all things.
What you get with such a massive boost to one module is pidgeon-holing a ship down a certain way of fitting, without resolving a lot of the problems with a shipclass as a whole (like the fact that most of the shipclass sucks now and will suck even worse in comparison to their peers post patch, like the fact that only a few of the ships are capable of participating in frig gangs moving at full speed because they have agility which is basically that of cruisers and not frigates, ******ed fittings on a lot of them, lack of 4th ship bonus which is sorely needed for some ships to fulfill what you'd call their role - eg. the minmatar ships are horribly useless with small arties because of a lack of tracking bonus - etcetera).
Fixing the AFs by adressing concerns of each ship individually and assigning a 4th bonus of appropriate kind to each, fixing fittings, lowering build costs (50% over ceptors? Why?) and, for instance, un-nerfing their mass (which also boosts both AB and MWD speed) would be a much better deal on the whole without being gamebreaking as the AB bonus is on some ships.
If someone decided AFs are geared towards point blank AB orbiting, then why the hell do we have all the optimal bonused ships anyway?
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Allen Ramses
Caldari Red Federation
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 01:57:00 -
[453]
I just thought of something... Instead of a 15% AB bonus, why not a 7.5% reduction in heat output? They're assault ships. They should be able to handle more abuse than their T1 counterparts, not go faster than them. And with the recent reduction in overheating requirements, I'd say it could go much better this way. ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
prefectro
Minmatar tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 05:29:00 -
[454]
I think AB in general should get a significant increase in speed with a reduction in penalty for MWD. Make it so people actually have to decide if they want to use MWD or AB in PVP.
Something like 250% for AB, but no Sig penalty. And then keep 500% for MWD, but a 200% sig penalty. Not sure why the difference has to be so great to the point that you can't really have a gang with mixed MWD/AB.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari Red Federation
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 07:20:00 -
[455]
Originally by: prefectro Something like 250% for AB, but no Sig penalty. And then keep 500% for MWD, but a 200% sig penalty.
Can you say "tracking issues"? ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
Takeshi Yamato
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 14:54:00 -
[456]
Originally by: prefectro I think AB in general should get a significant increase in speed with a reduction in penalty for MWD. Make it so people actually have to decide if they want to use MWD or AB in PVP.
Something like 250% for AB, but no Sig penalty. And then keep 500% for MWD, but a 200% sig penalty. Not sure why the difference has to be so great to the point that you can't really have a gang with mixed MWD/AB.
That is also true. The fact that AF's need a frankly overpowered bonus to make afterburners viable on them is an indication that afterburners aren't useful without such a bonus. That's more of a problem with the module rather than the ships.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 08:04:00 -
[457]
Originally by: Takeshi Yamato That is also true. The fact that AF's need a frankly overpowered bonus to make afterburners viable on them is an indication that afterburners aren't useful without such a bonus. That's more of a problem with the module rather than the ships.
Post-QR, AB+Scram fitted frigates are more than viable, they will kill most MWD fitted ships provided the starting range is not too great (0-7km or so). The fitting and cap that is freed up is quite substantial compared to MWD fits. AB are only more or less useless in 0.0 however since you have large bubbles and such to traverse regularly.
In a busy lowsec system it is not uncommon for a ship scan to be 1/4-1/3 AF's, half of which will be AB fitted. Low-sec conditions are very different from practically everywhere else so one never know what you are going to get until you can view the enemy and analyse his movement/speed.
Unless CCP has the time to properly address the AF issue and give them an actual purpose that benefits all of them, I'd rather they postpone it for a future patch/expansion. Rush jobs have a tendency to come back and bite you
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 11:51:00 -
[458]
Tbh, if the T2 prices do indeed go down with the changes - that solves the largest remaining issue with the "good" AFs.
Of course, you're still left with many worthless ones, but that can be only solved by reviewing the shipclass on a ship per ship basis.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Lemmy Kravitz
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 12:38:00 -
[459]
I see little problem with this new crinkle aside from the fact that the Trasher will get doubly wtf pwned by a T2 frigate. It's hard enough as it is to kill an AF in a fleet action with a thrasher. With the speed bonus even if I fit an MWD the distance between an AF and my long range arty fit will melt so quick. I would have no problem with this situation if they give me either a.) Navy Issue Thrasher (no ROF penalty) b.) T2 Assault Destroyer (smaller sig, more lows, better tank)
|
Korvin
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 22:23:00 -
[460]
Edited by: Korvin on 04/10/2009 22:26:33 JUST DONT!!!!!
That's not an assault boost, thats a destroyer nerf tbh, as long as eaf nerf and close interceptors.
/me votes against this madness, assaults are just fine as they are now.
|
|
Dennard
Northern Cross Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 00:57:00 -
[461]
Originally by: Korvin assaults are just fine as they are now.
Ahem, as mentioned already in this thread, AF's are not fine as they are now
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Kitana Muerte
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 09:31:00 -
[462]
interesting change with the AB bonus, but what is gonna change? one AF without point, second without damage at least i hope ppl will fly them a lot..
/me cleaning the dust and undocking nano curse |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 09:39:00 -
[463]
Thanks folks for the feedback!
We have got the message from this individual change that low sec/faction warfare pvp'ers feel it will be either overpowered or not good enough and some one vs one encounters on sisi showed some interesting results which varied between the ships.
For now, thanks for the feedback on this particular change and the other suggestions which have been made thus far. We'll post again with the next iteration of the changes when they are ready for feedback soon!
|
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 10:19:00 -
[464]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks folks for the feedback!
Welcome back from the three day binge, hope you are feeling refreshed and ready for the final stretch
Low-sec would be hardest hit as 0.0 will always prefer MWD fits and high-sec is most often static in docking range or on gate, so right on the money. Biggest concern was the staggering limitations on all other ships if they were to field an effective counter and that one ship would be heads and shoulders above the rest.
Are you still going for the blanket/role change or will you be looking at them individually?
|
2ofSpades
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 10:35:00 -
[465]
The retribution really needs help. A 5L-2M-4H with 168-170CPU upgrade max would allow the retribution to be more in line with the wolf and ish. About the same tank and DPS, and now room for a scram. Or give the retribution even more CPU for a disruptor. The rockets seem to hit good but the dps could use maybe a 15-20dps to help the hawk/ven. Hawk could also use a better EM buffer slightly. Like the AB setup though.
|
Caldor Mansi
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 12:37:00 -
[466]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks folks for the feedback!
We have got the message from this individual change that low sec/faction warfare pvp'ers feel it will be either overpowered or not good enough and some one vs one encounters on sisi showed some interesting results which varied between the ships.
For now, thanks for the feedback on this particular change and the other suggestions which have been made thus far. We'll post again with the next iteration of the changes when they are ready for feedback soon!
You completely messed up speeds senselessly last year, fixing issues caused by the changes afterwards and a year later coming back to predeterminated objective that was not reached.
If you are 'impressed with the results so far internally' as much as you were with speed nerf last year, it is a hint that there is something not working correctly in development process...
Wasting resources a bit...?
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:15:00 -
[467]
Assault frigs will become even more of an OMGWTFPWNmobiles for PvE than they already are.
For FW at least, these things can tank solo a Level 3 mission right now. They'll be able to tank a L4 mission with ease after the afterburner speed bonus.
The only time not to use them on a mission would be if their dps isn't enough or the mission has an energy neutralizer.
|
Dennard
Northern Cross Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:20:00 -
[468]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks folks for the feedback!
Thank you for the update. AF's do need their 4th bonus and some need more fixing(slot layout & fitting issues). Please keep us updated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Korvin
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 21:00:00 -
[469]
Originally by: 2ofSpades The retribution really needs help. A 5L-2M-4H with 168-170CPU upgrade max would allow the retribution to be more in line with the wolf and ish. About the same tank and DPS, and now room for a scram. Or give the retribution even more CPU for a disruptor. The rockets seem to hit good but the dps could use maybe a 15-20dps to help the hawk/ven. Hawk could also use a better EM buffer slightly. Like the AB setup though.
Its just not a solopwnmobile, try to use it in pair.
And if you want do dps solo, well, train Enyo.
And that AB boost will just make all other frigs/interceptors go to hangar box till better times, everyone would use Jaguar to tackle and Ishkur for plexing. And guess what - That will make poor Arazu even more useless.
The one who need that boost is destroyers tbh, they lack dps, lack speed, lack tank, and too big to miss them.
|
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 22:41:00 -
[470]
Well, this thread is no longer "sticky" so I'm guessing it's back to the drawing board with no solution by Dominion. It's for the best but a bit dissappointing. We would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those pesky kids and Cpt. Branko.
|
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 23:53:00 -
[471]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks folks for the feedback!
We have got the message from this individual change that low sec/faction warfare pvp'ers feel it will be either overpowered or not good enough and some one vs one encounters on sisi showed some interesting results which varied between the ships.
For now, thanks for the feedback on this particular change and the other suggestions which have been made thus far. We'll post again with the next iteration of the changes when they are ready for feedback soon!
Can we at least get -1 high +1 med on the retribution? Pretty please?
Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Caldor Mansi
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 00:52:00 -
[472]
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Can we at least get -1 high +1 med on the retribution? Pretty please?
Trading 1 mid for 1 utility high slot is not very reasonable.
Retribution is already one of the most powerfull AF and does not really need any buff. |
R Mika
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 01:59:00 -
[473]
Damn... I was so excited.. AFs were about to become completely awesome ships.
I hope you still consider it as it would make them survivable and fun.
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 03:04:00 -
[474]
Originally by: R Mika Damn... I was so excited.. AFs were about to become completely awesome ships.
I hope you still consider it as it would make them survivable and fun.
QFT
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 08:06:00 -
[475]
Originally by: Zarnak Wulf Well, this thread is no longer "sticky" so I'm guessing it's back to the drawing board with no solution by Dominion. It's for the best but a bit dissappointing. We would have gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those pesky kids and Cpt. Branko.
Happy to be of assistance. I am just glad that other low-sec denizens recognized the potential issues high-speed AFs would cause. Solo protests are rather fail after all
Originally by: R Mika Damn... I was so excited.. AFs were about to become completely awesome ships.
Aye they would have been massive fun to fly, but is a single fun ship really worth making everything else into that which you fly when you are temporarily out of the "fun one"? Try Dual-prop AFs (MWD+AB). Works a lot better than one would think and surprises the hell out of people.
Utility High -> Mid on Retribution .. whomever made that suggestion initially must own the Retribution BPO, because that thing would sell like hotcakes! It is the best damage dealer in its weight class bar none. Sort rockets and the Vengeance can take the tackle/solo role for the Amarr .. making a beast of the Rock-Hawk in the process which is not a bad thing.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 11:26:00 -
[476]
Roflkets still need fixing though.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 11:32:00 -
[477]
Originally by: Gypsio III Roflkets still need fixing though.
Tell me about it. Just ran rocket tests against a high speed AB AF on SiSi .. 1-4 damage average per unbonused round. "Suck" is no where near strong enough a word to describe them
|
Baron Agamemnon
Caldari Holy Grail Construction
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 12:19:00 -
[478]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Gypsio III Roflkets still need fixing though.
Tell me about it. Just ran rocket tests against a high speed AB AF on SiSi .. 1-4 damage average per unbonused round. "Suck" is no where near strong enough a word to describe them
/signed
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 12:24:00 -
[479]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Gypsio III Roflkets still need fixing though.
Tell me about it. Just ran rocket tests against a high speed AB AF on SiSi .. 1-4 damage average per unbonused round. "Suck" is no where near strong enough a word to describe them
Hell yes. Rockets do so little damage that newbie frigates can probably tank them via passive shield recharge. It's ridiculous.
One would think that rockets would be especially good at hitting fast, small targets. But no. If the target moves at more than walking base, the dps drops close to zero -- not that it's that awesome to begin with.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 13:19:00 -
[480]
Yeah. The problem with rockets is that they're balanced around the assumption that, to do full damage, the target frig must be webbed and not MWDing or ABing. This works fine with, say HAMs, as AB on a cruiser is foolish and HAM platforms such as the Drake have plenty of room for a web, or a webbing gangmate.
But it breaks down on the frigate scale, where rocket platforms often don't really have the slots for a web (Hawk - AB, point, web, SSB, cap booster? Vengeance - AB, point, web, cap booster? Doesn't fit!), where they often fly solo and hence webbing gangmates aren't available, and where the metagame favours permarunning MWDs with sig bonuses (inties) or ABs. A general rule of thumb is that an ABing frigate needs to be dual-webbed to receive full damage, which is just impossible. The result is low base damage that is far too easily mitigated.
There's two strategies of solution here - to massively increase base damage, retaining the current ease of damage mitigation, producing a weapon system that would actually be quite useful at taking down cruisers, but would require teamwork or specialised fits to be really useful against other frigates. Or you could keep the current paper-towel damage, but make it much easier to apply. Some mix of the two is also an option.
Personally, I favour the first solution, to increase base damage but keep the difficulty of application, as it increases the tactical options available and the diversity of the game. However, nobody was saying that rockets were overpowered before the missile damage formula change, so the second option would probably also be viable. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |