paritybit
Repo.
268
   |
Posted - 2013.10.10 22:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
I am happy with the way the bonuses are laid out in the original post. I don't much care about the Kitsune, because it never needed to be close to its target anyway, but in order to apply webs, warp scramblers and neutralizers, the other ships need to be at a relatively close range even with their old bonuses. They need that extra range because they have a minimal tank and relatively large signature radius. Even with the minor buffs to their signature radius, it's not enough to put them on par with other frigates with regard to damage mitigation. If anything, they should have smaller signatures because they are "electronically hardened".
If the proposal changes such that the bonuses are lower again, then it should similarly decrease the signatures more and give them resist profiles consistent with the combat recons which they desperately need. This, combined with their slight hull/armor/shield buffs will help their ability to tank and keep them from instantly dying in any fight that isn't completely one-sided. They don't have covert ops cloaks (and they shouldn't), so there is no reason to treat them like force recons.
The reason they were never flown* is because even in very small skirmishes they were likely to die very quickly. Either the range bonus (with the exception of the Kitsune which could already be decently far away) or a buff to their tank will counter this problem.
I specifically exclude the Kitsune from my discussion because previously with imperfect skills it had an optimal of about 60 with T2 jammers, which is more than any frigate needs. Rather than a range bonus, it probably needs some secondary form of offensive electronic warfare (like, but not equal to the web, warp scrambler and energy neutralizer) to make it want to be at a more reasonable range. Shield dischordance generator (penalty to shield resistances)? Nanite disruption field (penalty to armor resistances)? Electronic systems disruption (other offensive electronic warfare is stronger on the affected ship)?
Of course I generally come at most problems from a very-small-gang point of view. But this is where I think EAFs are useful.
* And their lack in popularity is exactly why they are so expensive, by the way -- since fewer are flown, there is less demand, and less demand means fewer people want to produce because bulk production is easier, and then with fewer suppliers the cost is driven up. I suspect CCP knows this, but others complaining about the relative performance for the price point should take note. |