| 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) |
Letifer Deus
Total Mayhem.
Cry Havoc.
   |
Posted - 2009.11.07 00:12:00 -
[601]
Edited by: Letifer Deus on 07/11/2009 00:18:43
 Originally by: RedSplat
'We realized our blanket bonus was stupid so now we are going to pretend we never wanted to buff AF's anyway'
Does this not remind everyone exactly of what happened when they tried to buff the Deimos? CCP tries one idea, they get bad or mixed reviews and then instead of tweaking it or trying something else, they drop it and try as hard as possible to forget about it.
Did they try tweaking the bonus amount? No.
Did they try doing something about the 10mn ab concerns? No.
Did they try any other bonuses? No.
Did they bother stickying the f'ing feedback thread? No.
Did they say, "yes, we know this doesn't fix the currently bad AFs, but it DOES make AFs better on the whole. Rest assured we are looking into fixing poor performing AFs like the Hawk, Reti, etc." NOPE.
Nada.
TBH, I thought the AB bonus idea was F'ing brilliant. I love me an AB ishkur and unless you're going for the "heavy frigate tackler" role, I think it's the only way to go. The only major downside was the low speed. tis a shame they didn't put any effort in it besides putting it on SISI and taking it down. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
JinChilla
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 10:12:00 -
[602]
Originally by: Letifer Deus
...
...AFs better on the whole. Rest assured we are looking into fixing poor performing AFs like the Hawk, Reti, etc." NOPE.
Nada.
TBH, I thought the AB bonus idea was F'ing brilliant. I love me an AB ishkur and unless you're going for the "heavy frigate tackler" role, I think it's the only way to go. The only major downside was the low speed. tis a shame they didn't put any effort in it besides putting it on SISI and taking it down.
signed that part
also i am hoping the "Deimos procedure" wont become true...
|
Shikagi Sitami
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 13:32:00 -
[603]
AB boost on AFs was one of CCPs most stellar ideas in years, and a re-approach to the entire option of making them 'web immune' or otherwise being less affected... which is exactly what they enjoy with the AB boost.
Yet they don't occlude the interceptor roles.
And now they've removed the bonus because... what... rockets still don't work? Lame.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.11.07 23:54:00 -
[604]
A bit messy but going to leave this thread for good so last words.
AB boost did diddly squat for the AF class, it boosted two ships only, rest were/are pretty much locked into MWD to retain their effectiveness due to range/speed concerns.
Interceptors were overshadowed by the faster AFs, with scrams getting ever more important the interceptor loses its place in favour of heavier tanks that are able to operate inside scram range .. where all the nasties lurk (Ex. the AB boost allowed the Jaguar to perform all roles when it came to tackling), that is bad for variety and game as a whole.
Problem with the boost was high-tank/ low-sig/ high-speed ships zooming around .. it would be the MiniMe version of the Nano-age, especially with frigate rigs being cheap as chips now.
No one ship/fit should be able to trump a majority of all others.
The heavy tackle is already there; any of the 3+ midslot AFs using a dual-prop make superb tacklers of the "usual suspects" of interceptor shredding.
Vagabonds fear, and rightly so, a properly flown dual-prop Vengeance .. once that thing latches on it is game over as gang DPS is be applied.
If you haven't tried the dual-prop AF yet I can highly recommend it. Opens up a whole new can of worms to use as bait for the unwary.
By postponing it they are buying time to prevent overpowered ships from surfacing that will need massive boosts/nerfs elsewhere to work in the larger scheme.
By indicating that they are looking at rockets as well reads to me like they have a new vision and will be making a lot of smaller tweaks to the individual ships (ie. proper balancing) rather than using a blanket solution.
NB: When I first voiced my concerns about the boost the changes were not even on SiSi, problems were that obvious.
Focused testing quickly validated all my fears and I and others stepped up the logic-mongering to make others test and come up with alternatives .. result is at least a dozen perfectly viable solutions to the AF .. solutions that does not obsolete anything and keeps the iWin buttons at bay.
I for one am quite content that it has been reconsidered. No more fear of twin Scimitars backing up a flock of 2.5k/s Jaguars should make my nights a lot more manageable 
|
Leisen
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 20:22:00 -
[605]
Couldn't they just make the AB bonus smaller to balance it? I think it was a great idea and the AFs do need some love. Make it 10% or at least 5%. Do something.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 21:04:00 -
[606]
Originally by: Leisen
Couldn't they just make the AB bonus smaller to balance it? I think it was a great idea and the AFs do need some love. Make it 10% or at least 5%. Do something.
No. Just do it properly. AFs are missing a bonus and while AB bonus is great on some ships, it's just too blunt of an instrument to be using on all of them.
|
Black Mystic
|
Posted - 2009.12.07 19:29:00 -
[607]
I don't think the AF's need any love at all, they are just fine the way they are. People need to stop whinining about in efficiencies that don't exist. as it stands now I can fit my wolf with a T2 10mn AB (cruiser After Burner) and get a base speed of nearly 2400 m/s and have a scram/disruptor, and only a 33m sig radius.
AF/s don't need any bonuses... they are rounded out enough, and for those who where/are whining that they can't hold up to a cruiser's dps.... well don't frikkin put them in a path of a cruiser. solution=simplicity here. cruisers are more powerful, as they should be, and therefore you shouldn't try to take one on.
|
Grarr Wrexx
|
Posted - 2009.12.07 20:00:00 -
[608]
Originally by: Black Mystic
I don't think the AF's need any love at all, they are just fine the way they are. People need to stop whinining about in efficiencies that don't exist. as it stands now I can fit my wolf with a T2 10mn AB (cruiser After Burner) and get a base speed of nearly 2400 m/s and have a scram/disruptor, and only a 33m sig radius.
AF/s don't need any bonuses... they are rounded out enough, and for those who where/are whining that they can't hold up to a cruiser's dps.... well don't frikkin put them in a path of a cruiser. solution=simplicity here. cruisers are more powerful, as they should be, and therefore you shouldn't try to take one on.
Yep, that 10mn goes very nice with the acceleration of a mothership and the agility of a plated abaddon.
|
nameless slavegirl
|
Posted - 2009.12.07 20:26:00 -
[609]
Originally by: Black Mystic
as it stands now I can fit my wolf with a T2 10mn AB (cruiser After Burner) and get a base speed of nearly 2400 m/s and have a scram/disruptor, and only a 33m sig radius.
EFT warrior spotted. pls, let ppl with actual experience and constructive ideas post in here without ignorant theory craft posts 
|
| |
|
| 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 |