EVE Search - How to fix Electronic Attack Ships

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

How to fix Electronic Attack Ships

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Pokechan333	Posted - 2010.06.14 07:06:00 - [1] How about give them a covert ops cloak? The basic T1 cruiser variant oupreforms them price wise and preformance wise, which makes almost nobody want to fly them. Giving them cov ops cloaks would be great and make them actually useful
Sophy Rhiannon	Posted - 2010.06.14 07:51:00 - [2] You're doing it wrong then.
Max Tux	Posted - 2010.06.14 08:27:00 - [3] IMO they need; EHP boost: prob an extra 50-100% EHP smaller Sig: cut 20m ~ from each sig slightly more cap: something like 10% more slightly faster: something like 10%
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.06.14 08:41:00 - [4] Originally by: Max Tux IMO they need;... Only if the objective is to make them walk all over every other frigate, including AF's .. Give them the same lock range and signature as the T1 hulls and lower mass ever so slightly to give a little better speed/agility. Allows them to choose whether to stay at range using primary eWar or get closer to deploy secondary. Quick, simple and doesn't clash horribly with other ships.
Max Tux	Posted - 2010.06.14 09:41:00 - [5] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Originally by: Max Tux IMO they need;... Only if the objective is to make them walk all over every other frigate, including AF's .. Give them the same lock range and signature as the T1 hulls and lower mass ever so slightly to give a little better speed/agility. Allows them to choose whether to stay at range using primary eWar or get closer to deploy secondary. Quick, simple and doesn't clash horribly with other ships. They have a base EHP of less than 2K with level 5's, even fitting a MSE, their EHP is still low. The EHP boost wouldn't make up for the better resists of the AF's. It wouldn't make the OP, but would defiantly make them worth flying more.
Artemis Rose Sileo In Pacis THE SPACE P0LICE	Posted - 2010.06.14 09:50:00 - [6] 25% max lock range across the board. Trade the reduced sig radius bonus to a reduced sig from MWDs on the Hyena. Reduce mass to give them better agility and top speeds (ideally, between interceptors and AFs). *** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats
1600 RT	Posted - 2010.06.14 10:11:00 - [7] Edited by: 1600 RT on 14/06/2010 10:12:23 -more fitting -more low/med slots edit: lol at at the method "this ship sux lets give it a cov ops cloak"
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2010.06.14 10:17:00 - [8] they are far too slow, unagile and easy to kill. making them as tough or as fast as AFs will perhaps make some (sentinel) overpowered. I do not think an over all 25% this or 20% that accross all is whats needed, they should have some buffs based on their hull and EW. A sentinel would benifit from some speed to make best use of its TDs, the kitsune needs a bit more range overall and some more speed, the keres needs far more ehp and a touch of range - and as for the hyena just a bit more ehp (its speed is okay) theres a reason for the EAS frigs to be the least used of all T2 ships according to the latest QEN, think about their low cost, skill training and avilailty verses blackops and marauders. Perhaps change their roles completely perhaps people just dont want a frig that does EW well, i know i dont, but i know some changes (above) that might tempt me.
SFX Bladerunner Minmatar Bite me inc.	Posted - 2010.06.14 14:21:00 - [9] The problem with current EA frigates is that they are not worth their price. They provide a certain role on the field, which is specialized ewar. They ARE meant to get blown up and primaried, pilots know this. Their purpose is to provide ewar long enough on hostiles as to let your fleet gain the upper hand in the battle, to die in a honourable flame of having fullfilled its duty. In order for the above scenario to be plausible, and for pilots to actually concider playing this part in a fleet, some changes need to be made. As it stands right now EA frigates have some issues. The issues preventing it from fullfilling its designated role (and, if you like, as CCP 'intended') stated above can be summised as one SINGLE problem: Its ewar/projected survivability graph is all wrong. It provides too little ewar for too short a lifespan to be worth flying over any other frigate hull that has a much better rolespecific ability/projected lifespan. Thus to fix EA frigates one or both of the above stated issues could be addressed, let's look at both of them in turn and subdivide. 1. It's 'ability', or in other words, effects it can project onto enemies and/or friendlies that are beneficial to the gang. In order to increase the 'ability' rating of the EA frigates certain steps can be taken: - One could add on top of the abilities currently inhabited by EA frigates by adding new ones such as: cloaking, probing or any form of Ewar not currently covered by them. - One could broaden it's ability by adding side 'roles' to it in the form of for instance: adding more offensive (hp dmg) power, a better projection of said power and/or abilities. - One could increase its current bonuses thus directly increasing its current efficiency with its current arsenal. 2. It's 'projected lifespan', or in other words, how fast and for how long the EA frigate can do its 'job' before dying in projected engagements. In order to increase the 'lifespan' rating of EA frigates the following steps can be taken: - One could simply increase raw hitpoints and/or resistances thus merely increasing its lifespan under hostile fire. - One could take actions to decrease damage sustained on the ship by either making it faster (and/or more agile), making the signature smaller and/or increasing the range of it's 'ability', all to reduce incoming damage and enlargen the projected lifespan. Those are rougly the non-specific scematics of what can be done, these are not in a 'practical' form of "+1 medslot" or the likes and that might seem useless and irritating to some of you, but rest assured this is done on purpose. The matter of EA frigates is not "what specific fix would fix them" but "which role should it be enhanced on". It is not a matter of working bottom to top by insinuating a 'fix' and then waiting for the results to filter through as the players on TQ find and exploit all the new posibilities of so called 'fix'. To effectively enhance EA frigates (or any other 'broken' ship (type) for that matter) one first has to decide which specific aspect of it you'd like to address and improve upon. Once this has taken place THEN can you decide which practical application 'fix' would yield the desired result. TL;DR: You're doing it wrong. __________________________________________________ History is much like an endless waltz, the three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever..
Aliraxi Gallente Cow Boys From HeII	Posted - 2010.06.14 15:36:00 - [10] I'd be happy with a lock range boost. Optimal range of jammarz on a Kitsune (for me) is 75km. While the ship can only target 50 with purdy good skills Side note: If the cruiser is outperforming the EAF. urdoinitrong Can I has a cookie?

Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.06.14 16:42:00 - [11] Originally by: Aliraxi I'd be happy with a lock range boost. Optimal range of jammarz on a Kitsune (for me) is 75km. While the ship can only target 50 with purdy good skills Side note: If the cruiser is outperforming the EAF. urdoinitrong Kitsune: High: Whatever Mid: Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters SB II W/ Targeting Range Three Racial Jammers of choice Low: SDA II x 2 Rigs: Ionic Field Projectors x 2 128km lock range. 86km optimal and 53km falloff on jammers. 10.76 strength. Take one of the ionic field projector rigs off and replace it with a particle dispersion projector and you have a 105km lock range w/ a 100km optimal on the jammers. Of all the EAS the caldari one (surprise surprise) is the best.
Indeterminacy THORN Syndicate Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2010.06.14 17:14:00 - [12] Edited by: Indeterminacy on 14/06/2010 17:16:49 Originally by: Zarnak Wulf impressive targeting range stats, etc, etc and then... Originally by: Zarnak Wulf Three Racial Jammers of choice :facepalm: +1 to buff kitsune target range. Not like it will be OP. It's still hampered by Caldari Powergrid and will never have a tank.
Zarnak Wulf	Posted - 2010.06.14 17:27:00 - [13] I wouldn't argue with a lock range boost tbh. Griffin's natural lock range is 75km. That kind of kills any argument against it. I still think the fits above are the only way to fly an e-war frigate with a sig radius of 57m and be an asset in any form to your group.
Sebastien LaForge Percussive Diplomacy	Posted - 2010.06.14 18:03:00 - [14] I've got an idea, how about we buff the other ewar to bring it into line with ECM? As in, make it a viable form of electronic warfare. Or you know, just buff Damps since they're pretty much terrible.
Indeterminacy THORN Syndicate Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2010.06.14 18:04:00 - [15] Edited by: Indeterminacy on 14/06/2010 18:04:59 yeah the fit is fine. the problem is the poor target range which requires something be done to enhance it. (a low, mid, or rig slot+). And you chose to use a mid...which is my last choice given the 3 tbh. Originally by: Sebastien LaForge I've got an idea, how about we buff the other ewar to bring it into line with ECM? As in, make it a viable form of electronic warfare. Or you know, just buff Damps since they're pretty much terrible. ECM is a form of EWAR.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.06.14 19:11:00 - [16] Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 14/06/2010 19:11:33 Originally by: Zarnak Wulf I wouldn't argue with a lock range boost tbh. Griffin's lock range with full skills is 75km. That kind of kills any argument against it. Not sure anyone is debating the Griffin but rather the T2 Kitsune which is not so lucky, it has lower lock-range AND the eWar range bonus = hugglez poof EAS die: - From the low EHP because they have to be stupidly close to whatever they are painting/jamming/TD'ing/dampening due to having lower lack range than their T1 counterparts. - From their fat asses as they have bigger signatures than their T1 counterparts. Sort those and survivability comes down to pilot skills, smaller size and 10-20km more range is a massive tank increase (they should bloody die at point blank as all eWar boats so EHP is moot).
Starbuck Caldari Goldadler Enterprises The Seventh Legion	Posted - 2010.06.14 21:13:00 - [17] Why not give it the ablity to detect cloaked ships easier. --------------------------------------------------- Have Rail's. Will travel.
Gavin Miner	Posted - 2010.06.14 21:22:00 - [18] uniqueness. simple word, and one they lack. nothing an eas does can't be done by a couple T1 frigates. an a T1 frigate costs at most 200K ISK, an EAS is still what? 20 million? so I can recruit 10 newbies fit them out ships and set them in the Ewar role, maybe spend 2 days teaching them how to DO the job and WAY out perform the single EAS in the role. honostly, there's nothign you can do, EAS are completely useless when a blob of T1 frigs is better.
Liang Nuren Parsec Flux War.Pigs.	Posted - 2010.06.14 21:43:00 - [19] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 14/06/2010 21:45:27 Meh. EAFs are hopelessly broken, and I don't imagine they can be fixed without someone crying foul about how they obsolete everything in the whole game. My take is that all EAFs usually lack survivability as well as something specific - here's some options/comments: - Survivability: MWD Sig - good bonus. Doesn't have to be as strong as the inty bonus to help a lot. - Survivability: AB velocity - scary bonus. We saw that execution of this one is going to be very tricky, but we have the advantage here that we don't expect these ships to get up close. Conversely, this severely limits the utility of the bonus because most of the time their goal is to stay out of range! - Survivability: A bunch of HP/Resists - I don't like this because it very much impinges upon the role I'd imagine for an AF and is very un-frigatey. - The Keres cannot possibly be successful as long as it has a shorter scram bonus than the Arazu - and the reason for this is that the "primary" ewar (damps) is so hilariously broken that nobody in their right mind would fit it. Either fix damps or increase the scram bonus to match the recon bonus. - The Kitsune is hilariously long ranged - so much so that it requires a SeBo to even use its bonus. IMO it should focus on ewar from ~50km and have its ECM bonus strengthened appropriately. - The Hyena is really pathetic because its only real use is to **** with ships that can instantly vaporize it (Vaga, Curse, Cynabal, etc). I guess you could have one fly around with your torp raven fleet but that's really niche. I'd recommend doing something about web range bonuses as a whole before doing anything with the Hyena. - The Sentinel almost works. I think with the extra survivability (see above) and some fittings (1-2 grid IMO) it might just be worthwhile. Really, what I found telling about EAFs was that according to the QEN there's less than 300 (of the entire ship class) active in the entire game. Anyone saying even the Sentinel or Kitsune are 'fine' is out of their mind. -Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
Garamond	Posted - 2010.06.14 22:38:00 - [20] I remember when I first heard about these ewar tech 2 frigates I was all for it. I liked flying a Griffin now and again. I ran out and bought the book and trained it to level 1. I then looked at the ships to see which one I wanted and laughed at the price. No way are they worth that. Not when a Griffin is just as good. I would consider 3 million to be a reasonable price. I would probably cough up 4 million just to try one out as the new shiny. for 12-15 million. It would have to seriously outperform a Blackbird or have something unique about it. Like that cloak detection mentioned above.

Cpt Branko Retired Pirate Club	Posted - 2010.06.14 22:49:00 - [21] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/06/2010 22:49:45 EAFs are a stupid idea. Tacking on a covops cloak on every ship is even stupider, particularly on every EW ship. Buy a Falcon. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Stuart Price Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2010.06.15 01:30:00 - [22] Originally by: Liang Nuren - The Kitsune is hilariously long ranged - so much so that it requires a SeBo to even use its bonus. IMO it should focus on ewar from ~50km and have its ECM bonus strengthened appropriately. Anyone saying even the Sentinel or Kitsune are 'fine' is out of their mind. -Liang It is fine, just not great. 3 x Salvager II 4 x Racial Jammer (best named for cap reasons) 1 x Cat Cold-Gas I Arcjet Thruster 2 x Sig Dist Amp II 2 x Small Ionic Field Projector Operates at just under 80km and has the size/speed to stay out of trouble. It's not stronger than a BB but it'll live longer and that's handy since a dead e-war ship jams nothing. Snipers will ruin it unless you jam them but, again, BB's and Falcons/Rooks have that issue as well. There are worse ways to spend the isk. I do agree quite strongly that EAF's in general need some boosting though. Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate'
Widemouth Deepthroat	Posted - 2010.06.15 01:41:00 - [23] I agree completely with giving them covert cloak. Or even make the current EAF slightly more tanky (either through ehp, sig radius reduction or whatever) and make a second cloaking EAF so they are like frigate version of recon ship.
Pokechan333	Posted - 2010.06.15 02:23:00 - [24] The point of giving them the cloak is pretty much making them mini recon ships to be honest
Vorax Vorago	Posted - 2010.06.15 04:47:00 - [25] Originally by: Pokechan333 How about give them a covert ops cloak? The basic T1 cruiser variant oupreforms them price wise and preformance wise, which makes almost nobody want to fly them. Giving them cov ops cloaks would be great and make them actually useful You know it's funny, I was just about to make a thread suggesting this same thing. Glad I saw this first.
Noisrevbus Caldari Breams Gone Wild	Posted - 2010.06.15 09:02:00 - [26] Edited by: Noisrevbus on 15/06/2010 09:02:42 Originally by: Stuart Price Operates at just under 80km and has the size/speed to stay out of trouble. It's not stronger than a BB but it'll live longer and that's handy since a dead e-war ship jams nothing. Snipers will ruin it unless you jam them but, again, BB's and Falcons/Rooks have that issue as well. There are worse ways to spend the isk. I do agree quite strongly that EAF's in general need some boosting though. You kind of negated your own setup there and brought up the issues yourself. It costs more than a Blackbird without being stronger. Wether it'll live longer or not rely plenty on the comp/opposition you face, in general, i'd say calling it more survivable than Blackbird is a stretch - even if it's not customary to tank throwaway Blackbirds. As for the other ships, while they may be difficult to keep alive for logistics or keep on grid, they are not impossible to keep afloat in their correct setting. Rooks can usually field a tank respective of the gang it's in (eg., LR HACs), Falcons both have the cloak to rely on and also sport the odd LSE or Plate used in combination with Logistics, range-denial, cloaks and warp out/ins. Obviously not the most sturdy ships, but the Kitsune has a sig of 350 burning it's MWD with an unbuffered EHP of 1500-2000. More or less any ship with sufficient range and cruiser-sized weapons is likely to instapop that. Every LR HAC, any reasonably skilled Drake pilot, all hostile Frigates. The list of quite common ships being immidiate threats to a Kitsune tend to get quite long, fairly quick.
1Ekrid1	Posted - 2010.06.15 10:26:00 - [27] Edited by: 1Ekrid1 on 15/06/2010 10:27:18 IMO all frigs need a 20% EHP boost, other than that there is nothing wrong with EA frigs. if you got blown up in one, blame ur gang. try this i you're having trouble. get the amarr EA ship. Put two 200mm plates on it. cruise control to victory. its not that hard guys.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.06.15 10:52:00 - [28] Blaster boats need boost, lets give them a cov ops cloak too
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.06.15 11:02:00 - [29] giving EAFs covert ops cloak is a bad idea, IMO only coverts and covert related ships like black ops and recons should get this ability. Why not simply boost their effectivity with higher bonus values? Ewar ships are usually always primary, so they should be effective at least.
1Ekrid1	Posted - 2010.06.15 11:23:00 - [30] Originally by: Robert Caldera giving EAFs covert ops cloak is a bad idea, IMO only coverts and covert related ships like black ops and recons should get this ability. Why not simply boost their effectivity with higher bonus values? Ewar ships are usually always primary, so they should be effective at least. Or we could give more T1 frigs very small bonuses like 1-2% bonus to racial Ewar mod. like the kestrel getting 2% per level to ECM. Then you can mix it up and the EA could be Vamp and super tank while the real ECM is on the kestrel instead. Classic bait and switch. just as an example.



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.