EVE Search - AF Changes?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

AF Changes?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.20 13:01:00 - [1] Mostly this looks like a good change. People saying there should be a counter - well there is, they are called webs. That said rockets greatly need some love and probably light missiles too. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.20 14:27:00 - [2] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Originally by: Ghoest Mostly this looks like a good change. People saying there should be a counter - well there is, they are called webs... Problem is the plural nature of that statement, and even then 2 webs won't cut it. Dual webbed some of the AFs will be faster than a scrambled cruiser/hac. You will also need point, a neutralizer to shut down the AB (or 3rd web) .. that is a minimum of 4 slots, 3 of which are midslots. If your cruiser has medium guns you might even need more slots/rigs to be able to track if close in. Think a minute what ships are actually left once you take all those requirements into consideration .. not a lot. It is certainly doable, but the counter will be so specialised that it is of practically no use outside the AF/frigate bashing scenario .. this is bad. Lots more information in the official thread in test server part of forum, interested parties should stop by. Good read for the most part. You are confused about EVE in general. You seem to think all cruiser size ships should be easily able to kill all frig sized ships. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.20 18:00:00 - [3] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Originally by: Ghoest You are confused about EVE in general. You seem to think all cruiser size ships should be easily able to kill all frig sized ships. Not at all. But once you make a change that requires all other ships to sacrifice nearly all their slots to even stand a chance .... As I said there will be counters but forcing a fitting paradigm to combat a single ship type while gimping all other engagements is wrong. The speed-boost on the table makes AFs as fast or faster than a majority of MWD cruisers with zero downside. As it is now an AF that fits a MWD can catch and kill nearly all cruisers that are not prepared for it, but it does so with the usual drawbacks to cap/signature. The changes to frigates in Quantum Rise gave them a tremendous boost with higher speeds, lower mass and better agility while reducing web power .. they don't NEED any boost. AF's are already one of the most frequently used ships in low-sec. Making them god-mobiles will make that a 90% rate with remaining 10% being alts in recons/logistics (numbers exaggerated for effect) If a HAC actually fit a tank it would have no problem standing up to these Assult frig. Your entire argument is basically that a HAC should never be able fir for solo against any medium or bigger ship(or run away) ans still not be afraid of AFs. HACs are not supposed to be "I win" buttons. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.20 23:53:00 - [4] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Ghoest HACs are not supposed to be "I win" buttons. Neither are these AFs. And they definitely are against what I'd consider to be 80%+ of the fits (solo or not!) on TQ right now. -Liang Ummm. Maybe the probl;em is "80%+ of the fits." You noobs thinks HACs are supposed to be a nuclear powered laser machine gun in a game of rock/paper/scissors. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.21 00:02:00 - [5] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida [. Regardless, why would one want to use the ability to tank a ship type as a sign of balance anyway? Uhhh. Maybe because defense was originally supposed to be an important part of the game and we have now gotten to the point where most people mostly ignore it in PVP. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.21 00:16:00 - [6] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Ghoest Ummm. Maybe the probl;em is "80%+ of the fits." You noobs thinks HACs are supposed to be a nuclear powered laser machine gun in a game of rock/paper/scissors. How would you fit a Brutix? How would you fit a Drake? How would you fit a Cerb? How would you fit a Deimos? How would you fit an Ishtar? -Liang Well it would depend on what I wanted. I accept that their will be trade offs. Especially if I think I can solo. BCs should be one trick fit. They a disposable so fit for your intended target and suck it up if you meet the wrong guy. The Cerb is a broken ship by design(or built for an extremely narrow niche.) Id love to see a modest redesign, but dont holds its weirdness against other ships. The Deimios is already a glass canon - most people dont fly them. The Ishtar? Please. You can fit it for anything. Trally you should have mentioned the poor Eagle. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.21 00:21:00 - [7] Originally by: Cpt Branko stuff But its not an "I win" for everything. Its just a ship that treat some T2 Cruiser builds as T2 Cruisers treat T2 Battleships. You can fit many T2 cruisers to take out an AF if thats what you want anyway. It just wont be the same fit that owns other cruioser class and larger ships. And the AF wont be taking out big ships that the cruisers can kill. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.21 00:37:00 - [8] Originally by: Liang Nuren [ It's not treating "some" T2 cruisers. It's not treating everything in the entire game that doesn't have 2 medium neuts, light drones, and 1-2 webs that way. You don't fit for anti-AF work and you are AF-food. Period. -Liang Any BS with a tank will be fine. Plenty of BCs with tanks will be fine. Some T2 cruisers will be fine. Its about time that T2 cruisers have a predator. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.21 02:50:00 - [9] Your true colors are coming out. You want to be able to set up T2 cruisers to fight big ships and never have to worry about AFs. You guys totally ignore that some T2 cruisers could be set up to counter AFs - at the expense of other mission. And you ignore the fact that there are other ships vulnerable in HAC much the same way HACs are vulnerable to AFs. Also remember I said in the beginning that light missiles and rockets need to be adjusted if this change goes through. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.21 03:15:00 - [10] I have no idea what you just said. Are you making fun of me for a misspelling or something? Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.21 11:42:00 - [11] Yes ignore the guy looking at the big picture who doesnt mind a shift from the current disturbed paradigm. Pnly pay attention to petty noobs trying to protect their T2 cruiser glory. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.21 21:23:00 - [12] Originally by: SuiJuris Reality called again, once more then 2 ships are involved the AF's arn't all that stunning. OMG I CAN solo a battleship in HAC, but 2 hac's can't solo 2 battleships. Winner. Wherever you went - Here you are.
Ghoest	Posted - 2009.09.22 17:45:00 - [13] Originally by: Grut Someone posted a good idea on the test server thread. The wolf, enyo, hawk and vengance get the ab bonus The others get a 4th bonus Ishkur - +5% drone speed Jag + Harpy - Tracking Retribution - Cap recharge Rockets get fixed, the hawk gets resists instead of boost & the retribution gets a 2nd mid. Sorted. That would work. Wherever you went - Here you are.

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.