EVE Search - Assault Frigate Boost Feedback

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Assault Frigate Boost Feedback

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Opertone Caldari Monsters	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:02:00 - [181] lol role: +4 warp core strenght, certain frigate should have this role, perhaps newbie oriented frigate. I am perfectly ok with resistant, maneuverable, hard to hit little ship such as AF is. AB bonus is wonder full and not game breaking at all. 2 AFs vs 2 Cerbs - Cerbs will win. 2 AFs vs 2 drakes, AFs will not win. Now we need to conduct tests of the AF performance on sisi before we can talk. AFs need to be a strong alternative to flying HAC or BC, it's really fun.
Actumarius Caldari Malevolent Intentions	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:09:00 - [182] givenGiven that this is yet another boost against pirates in lowsec who cannot field afs of their own around gates, can we finally get rid of the gate guns shooting drones stupidity and give us some options...
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:24:00 - [183] Originally by: Hun Jakuza Dont do!!!!! We dont need new ceptor with AB. 15%/lvl speed boot is ridiculous. I see when a AF will kill a 200m ship alone . Just orbit 500m range. Zealot will die, and all ship with med sizes weapon cant hit them. Oh u will telling for others, use neut on ship. Muahahahaha I'm waiting when a Zealot swap laser to neut :D Or a Rapier change cloak to neut or drop a gun to neut. Muahahahaha Its not a ceptor, its still a slow AB AF. my MWD AF will still be faster = I wil lstill kill AB AFs. Thats the main reason I do not like this, and I would rather see a proper ship bonus for these nice firgs, like resistance/hp/tracking bonuses and such. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
darius mclever	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:34:00 - [184] Originally by: Actumarius givenGiven that this is yet another boost against pirates in lowsec who cannot field afs of their own around gates, can we finally get rid of the gate guns shooting drones stupidity and give us some options... you already got web and neut as option.
Okonaa	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:37:00 - [185] Originally by: MalVortex Retribution will still be utterly useless unless it gets a second medslot. yup, i rather fly a crusader. it has more dps and is way faster.
Vanden The Happy Spacemen	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:41:00 - [186] Originally by: Okonaa yup, i rather fly a crusader. it has more dps and is way faster. Faster? Yes. More DPS? No. They both have the same number of turrets and the same damage bonus.
Cornette Gallente Black Screen of Death Huzzah Federation	Posted - 2009.09.17 11:41:00 - [187] 15% per level is to much, not even T3 ships with a ab module system get that much. 10% would be fine, but it could go along with a slight hitpoint increase and a bit faster warp speed.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.09.17 12:13:00 - [188] Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 17/09/2009 12:15:28 Originally by: Opertone I am perfectly ok with resistant, maneuverable, hard to hit little ship such as AF is. AB bonus is wonder full and not game breaking at all. 2 AFs vs 2 Cerbs - Cerbs will win. 2 AFs vs 2 drakes, AFs will not win. Now we need to conduct tests of the AF performance on sisi before we can talk. AFs need to be a strong alternative to flying HAC or BC, it's really fun. Cerbs may succeed in driving them off before they die, but its doubtful .. The HML Cerb can practically be permatanked in the AB Punisher currently, increase speed and resists won't change this. Cerbs won't have nearly enough tank if field even minimal tackle. HML/HAM Drakes suffer same problem as the Cerberus. Missiles wont do nearly enough damage to kill a speedy frig and if they sacrifice tank to tackle/slow down the AFs they get ****d just like the Drake in the tournament - Drakes die or the AFs bugger off. The reason you see so many Assault Caracals now is because it is the only thing that is even remotely close to being able to kill AB AFs without using lots of webs, neuts and drones. The AB Frigate is insanely powerful in the right hands already. Giving an already well balanced class a massive edge against everything else without provided any reasonable counters is just asking for trouble. It is uninspired and unnecessary. It caters to the "once in a while" PvP'er who just wants some fast paced fun with no regard for the overall balance. MWD will still be the preferred drive for null-sec which means that this is going to affect low-sec the most. Balance is already fragile with no AoE weapons or tackle options.
Yodohime Kibagami Amarr Rajatapaukset	Posted - 2009.09.17 12:30:00 - [189] Maybe active tanking that 150+ mil HAC will look more appealing again. Buffer tanker rage aside. Fix the Amarr AF's, please. Or the rockets for the Vengeance so people dont have to fit it with heretical weapons.
Cpt Branko Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity	Posted - 2009.09.17 13:00:00 - [190] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/09/2009 13:02:50 Originally by: Yodohime Kibagami Maybe active tanking that 150+ mil HAC will look more appealing again. A active tanked 150+ mil HAC is fail, unless you consider 150+ mil ships which are made to tank but not kill AFs viable (and as a extra bonus, if armour tanked end up slower then a BC and not even able to tank the DPS of one in most cases; enjoy your T1 cruiser hunting ship). Oh, wait, does that look like a lot of fail? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint

Vidi Angelus Caldari Crystal Dynamics Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.09.17 13:10:00 - [191] Certainly a step in the right direction. People have been complaining about the lack of solo and I cant think of a better class than a frigate to be boosted for great solo work. They'll still get ****d by more than one player. They don't have the DPS to kill large targets (BC and above) before friends can come assist, and cruisers can still overheat MWD to get away (remember these AF still need to get into 10.8KM range to get a point, so they can't cover a gate solo) they'll still be vulnerable to Neuts, drone boats, & Ewar, As well as long ranged attacks. But please, as someone with no Amarr skills whatsoever, Give the damn retribution a second midslot.
Larana Nightrunner	Posted - 2009.09.17 13:17:00 - [192] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/09/2009 13:02:50 Originally by: Yodohime Kibagami Maybe active tanking that 150+ mil HAC will look more appealing again. A active tanked 150+ mil HAC is fail, unless you consider 150+ mil ships which are made to tank but not kill AFs viable (and as a extra bonus, if armour tanked end up slower then a BC and not even able to tank the DPS of one in most cases; enjoy your T1 cruiser hunting ship). Oh, wait, does that look like a lot of fail? I'm a little unsure if you're meaning to reinforce my point or counter it, because I'm admittedly in the opinion that res + rep > hueg buffer that makes you a slowpoke target for big boys to shoot (BC) HACs have been beneath them in the food chain since tier2 BC, nothing new there.
Cpt Branko Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity	Posted - 2009.09.17 13:19:00 - [193] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/09/2009 13:21:37 Originally by: Vidi Angelus Certainly a step in the right direction. People have been complaining about the lack of solo and I cant think of a better class than a frigate to be boosted for great solo work. They'll still get **d by more than one player. I'm sorry. Currently T1&T2 frigates, destroyers, T1 & T2 cruisers and BCs are all viable for solo. If you cannot use larger ships efficiently for solo, that does not give you some god-given right to have the easiest ship class to use (frigates; with their superiority in lock time, warp speed, them being fairly safe in camps and so on, they're the easiest class to solo roam in) boosted to silly levels. Two ships out of one shipclass being awesome for solo instead of about ~15-20 ships is NOT a boost to solo PVP. Originally by:** Larana Nightrunner Edited by: Larana Nightrunner on 17/09/2009 13:17:49 Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/09/2009 13:02:50 Originally by: Yodohime Kibagami Maybe active tanking that 150+ mil HAC will look more appealing again. A active tanked 150+ mil HAC is fail, unless you consider 150+ mil ships which are made to tank but not kill AFs viable (and as a extra bonus, if armour tanked end up slower then a BC and not even able to tank the DPS of one in most cases; enjoy your T1 cruiser hunting ship). Oh, wait, does that look like a lot of fail? I'm a little unsure if you're meaning to reinforce my point or counter it, because I'm admittedly in the opinion that res + rep > hueg buffer that makes you a slowpoke target for big boys to shoot (BC) HACs have been beneath them in the food chain since tier2 BC, nothing new there. (arg, wrong alt) Oh, plated/trimarked HACs are silly, I agree with that. I think giving up the mobility advantage in a HAC is too much of a sacrifice - but that is a problem for active armour fits as well, since armour rigs give you a significant speed penality. On most ships, shield buffer plus speed is the way to go imo. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Larana Nightrunner	Posted - 2009.09.17 13:31:00 - [194] Originally by: Cpt Branko [ Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/09/2009 13:02:50 Originally by: Yodohime Kibagami Maybe active tanking that 150+ mil HAC will look more appealing again. A active tanked 150+ mil HAC is fail, unless you consider 150+ mil ships which are made to tank but not kill AFs viable (and as a extra bonus, if armour tanked end up slower then a BC and not even able to tank the DPS of one in most cases; enjoy your T1 cruiser hunting ship). Oh, wait, does that look like a lot of fail? I'm a little unsure if you're meaning to reinforce my point or counter it, because I'm admittedly in the opinion that res + rep > hueg buffer that makes you a slowpoke target for big boys to shoot (BC) HACs have been beneath them in the food chain since tier2 BC, nothing new there. (arg, wrong alt) Oh, plated/trimarked HACs are silly, I agree with that. I think giving up the mobility advantage in a HAC is too much of a sacrifice - but that is a problem for active armour fits as well, since armour rigs give you a significant speed penality. On most ships, shield buffer plus speed is the way to go imo. Ah yeah, definitely should have clarified that a bit, aside the tradtional active tank with a few sacrificed low slots, a TDII with tracking script should be a gem to tank AF damages.
M Blanc	Posted - 2009.09.17 14:00:00 - [195] TBH, I think afterburners as a whole need a boost similar to this; as it stands, they're hardly ever used on ships bigger than frigates for general purpose combat, and a 75% boost would make the choice between an AB and an MWD somewhat less clear cut than it currently is for cruiser hulls and above. That said, I don't think the proposed bonus is unbalanced, but I do think it's a bit of a blunt tool. The real problem with AFs is their wildly differing levels of utility: the Jag and Ishkur are fantastic ships as is; the Wolf, Harpy, and Enyo are OK to mediocre; and the Retribution, Vengeance, and Hawk are worthless. Before boosting the class as a whole, it would be good to see CCP boost the bad and mediocre ships up to the level of the jag/ishkur, and then consider what to do about the fourth bonus.
Vall Kor Minmatar Stealthfield Clandestine.	Posted - 2009.09.17 14:04:00 - [196] Awesome changes to my favorite ship class. I believe this will help with survivability and allow for a heavy tackle. I think rockets and light missiles will need to be adjusted (even without this change they need to be adjusted). I like the change, AFs need to be small (sig wise) and quick. If you saddle them with big sig sizes kinda defeats the purpose of flying a small ship. "By way of deception, thou shalt do war"
Vyktor Abyss Gallente The Abyss Corporation	Posted - 2009.09.17 14:06:00 - [197] Just curious, I've not got TQ or Test server access at the moment, but I'd love to know how this affects attempting tight orbits like 500m with an Enyo. Do Light Neutron Blasters track the target if its say a cruiser or BS? Do you stay within optimal range without manually reducing speed? What maximum speeds (ignoring overdrives etc) are we now talking about here? Thanks, Vyk.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.09.17 14:22:00 - [198] I have to agree with the others in this thread. If you want to help AFs fight against large ships, help them deal with drones and neuts. If you want to make AFs instawin buttons against any other small ships, then give them this bonus.
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2009.09.17 14:35:00 - [199] AB AF are very situational as stands right now. The proposed change would make them more appealing as a heavy tackler choice. Interceptors have the signature of a dessy and move at 5km/s+. AF would have half that signature and move around 1.5km/s to 2km/s depending on fittings. This is hardly overpowered. Yes - you can get them to sick speeds if you pour isk into your frigate. Very risky. There are other tweaks that can be made as well. It's already been mentioned at the beginning of this thread that a rocket revamp is under consideration. Make the speed bonus an AF skill rather then a frigate skill. Rework T2 ammo including missiles. Increase web strength on web specialty ships. (Some faction ships are getting this - why not the rapier, huginn, hyena, ect.)
Cpt Branko Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity	Posted - 2009.09.17 14:52:00 - [200] Originally by: Zarnak Wulf AB AF are very situational as stands right now. The proposed change would make them more appealing as a heavy tackler choice. Interceptors have the signature of a dessy and move at 5km/s+. AF would have half that signature and move around 1.5km/s to 2km/s depending on fittings. This is hardly overpowered. Yes - you can get them to sick speeds if you pour isk into your frigate. Very risky. Not really risky at all - it takes a not very expensive pirate set and a reasonably cheap and easy to get complex AB to get to 'silly' speeds. The problem is that heavy tackler is far too effective for tackling larger ships and holding them there (and killing them), and it makes a few now good AFs horridly imbalanced (take, eg. the dual-MSE Jaguar which cannot be killed by light drones and cannot be shaken off with a neut; even two is unlikely to work; and it becomes stupidly fast). Sure, most of the AFs will be fine (and perfectly counterable) - but they suck, given you have much much better ones which are not really counterable. Consider how the role of heavy tackler is horridly overpowered over a tackle interceptor; a tackle interceptor cannot stop anyone from burning away/to somewhere; a tackle interceptor is not going to kill anything at all solo; a tackle interceptor is weak to things like destroyers and so on which the new and improved AB AF slaughters, and except in case of MSE stilleto will be shaken off by a pack of Warrior IIs. Originally by: Zarnak Wulf Increase web strength on web specialty ships. (Some faction ships are getting this - why not the rapier, huginn, hyena, ect.) Honestly I don't approve of only specialist ships having functional tackle. Given how central functioning tackle is for solo/small gang, I'd rather nobody have it then larger gangs with all the works having such a amazing advantage. Of course, I might be biased because I like solo/small gang work. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint

M Blanc	Posted - 2009.09.17 15:03:00 - [201] Edited by: M Blanc on 17/09/2009 15:03:44 Originally by: Cpt Branko The problem is that heavy tackler is far too effective for tackling larger ships and holding them there (and killing them), and it makes a few now good AFs horridly imbalanced (take, eg. the dual-MSE Jaguar which cannot be killed by light drones and cannot be shaken off with a neut; even two is unlikely to work; and it becomes stupidly fast). Sure, most of the AFs will be fine (and perfectly counterable) - but they suck, given you have much much better ones which are not really counterable. Consider how the role of heavy tackler is horridly overpowered over a tackle interceptor; a tackle interceptor cannot stop anyone from burning away/to somewhere; a tackle interceptor is not going to kill anything at all solo; a tackle interceptor is weak to things like destroyers and so on which the new and improved AB AF slaughters, and except in case of MSE stilleto will be shaken off by a pack of Warrior IIs. Of course, the tackle inty has a much higher chance of, you know, making the tackle in the first place, since it'll be moving >3x faster than the AF, has a much higher scanres, and a 36 km point. Also, since you say most of the AFs will be fine with the speed boost, why not say 'sounds OK, but might make the Jaguar OP' rather than acting like the proposed change is the end of the world?
Kallana Wren	Posted - 2009.09.17 15:13:00 - [202] Personally I can't recall a single decent gate camp where a non cov-ops cloaked ship made it through alive. If you think you should be able to camp everything without having actual tacklers then I'm sorry this ruins your day, but the AFs have been needing something like this for quite some time, as did the stealth bombers before them. While ceptors will remain the kings of tackle, at least this will allow the AFs to fill a tackle and hold role to some extent.
rubico1337 Caldari Mnemonic Enterprises	Posted - 2009.09.17 15:35:00 - [203] Edited by: rubico1337 on 17/09/2009 15:41:32 Originally by: Planktal Originally by: rubico1337 personally, i am all for a AF buff.... great idea but how about: Jag: 7.5% increase in velocity per level Wolf: 7.5% increase in tracking or ROF per level Ishkur: 7.5% increase to drone damage/hitpoints/MWD speed per level Enyo: 10% increase in AB speed per level Harpy: 7.5% increase in hybrid weapon tracking per level Hawk: 10% increase in missile flight time per level Retrubution: 7.5% decrease in rate of fire of energy turrets per level Vengance: 10% increase to rocket velocity per level on Retribution: swap a high slot for a med slot. fixed those are also relatively sane bonuses although the hawk would still need to be boosted on its own, due to its use of rockets and need for more fitting :) id rather like the enyo to have a 10% boost to MWD speed, since it is supposed to be the blaster ship. it could close range fast and get in blaster range, similar to the mwd bonus on the thorax but with more ooomph
xxxak Caldari No Limit Productions Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.09.17 15:37:00 - [204] This is going to be over powered. AFs will become the nano-Vaga/Ishtar of the Nano era. No one will fly anything else, but because they are so easy to get into, EVERYONE will fly them. It will suck. A better solution to current AF issues is to make them have a larger cap and/or more cap regen. Let them use a MWD for a LONG time (or even stable) unless they are neuted to hell. That would be fair.
Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.09.17 15:49:00 - [205] Edited by: Zastrow J on 17/09/2009 15:49:59 Here's the argument I had made before this change: AFs and inties are both primarily tacklers. Bombers are your dps frigate. Interceptor's role is to get that initial tackle as fast as possible. The role the AF should fit in is that it's not as fast burning off for that initial tackle but once it does get a tackle it should be more difficult to shake off. Thus: AB speed tanking boost
Lugalzagezi666	Posted - 2009.09.17 15:55:00 - [206] Imo too much, but ok... ...just rework some afs that would be op after this boost - jag in first place, and some that would suck /hawk/. ...and buff rockets /and now smls too heh/, so they will be able to actually do damage /damage comparable to guns!!/ to af going 2km/s. Maybe even hmls/hams will need some boost. And one question - wont orbiting at 2km/s allow afs to outtrack even small guns?
Liang Nuren The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2009.09.17 16:19:00 - [207] Originally by: Lugalzagezi666 And one question - wont orbiting at 2km/s allow afs to outtrack even small guns? No. We were able to hit 6-7kms interceptors with frigate guns during the last Nano age... -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org
SuiJuris Absinthe Brothers Consortium	Posted - 2009.09.17 16:22:00 - [208] Really guys, you still think these are overpowered when a equel number of ships in almost ANY other ship class can murder them, 2x cruisers would absolutely destroy 2 AF's even with this boost. I think this boost is good BUT its not a fix all. The Vengeance is still only good as a tackler as its DPS is laughable and it has a capacitor bonus but less base capacitor then a Retribution wth. The Retribution is still terrible. Enyo still lacks anything to merit using it over a Ishkur. The Wolf will be helped a lot by this and the Jag will just be amazing although I still might fit a MWD on mine because I like overheating and catching Inties to ruin there day. Rockets and Standard missiles will need help. Lots of it. --- I am taking pre orders for Navy Armageddons
RedSplat	Posted - 2009.09.17 16:29:00 - [209] I just Solo'd in succession with no break to reload or regen shields: 2* Taranis, 1 Crow, 1 Ares Using an AB fit Jaguar- and i only have AF3 and crappy skills and a t1 tank. They all had t2 fits. (and on an entirely unrelated note, Erebus can track 1.3KM/S AB Jags with XL turrets) Originally by: CCP Mitnal I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Novantco The Tuskers	Posted - 2009.09.17 16:37:00 - [210] Give the Enyo another mid slot please. Oh and if those changes goes live without much tweaking, I think skilling up for Minnie frigs is on the cards.



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.