EVE Search - Question about the upcoming changes to Minmatar AFs

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Question about the upcoming changes to Minmatar AFs

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Essque	Posted - 2006.06.06 23:37:00 - [1] I was looking at the patch notes and I've noticed something a bit strange, in my opinion. # The Wolf projectile optimal range bonus has been changed to a projectile damage bonus. Also, its falloff bonus has been increased to 10% to balance it with other ships of the same class. # The Jaguar projectile tracking speed bonus has been changed to a projectile damage bonus. It also has a higher power and cpu output and a new medium power slot. That would mean that the Wolf is losing its optimal range bonus and it gets more falloff. As the Wolf is at the moment the Minmatar AF to be used as an artilery platform, I really wonder why did Tuxford took this decision. One might think that he could do it exactly the other way around... The Jaguar, on the other hand, keeps its optimal range bonus ( which is really usefull only if you use artillery ) and loses its tracking bonus. What we get is an artillery platform with poor tracking. Of course, falloff bonus doesn't necessarely means ACs, not does the optimal range necessarely means artillery. But let me put it this way: it helps a lot. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most Minmatar AF pilots use the Wolf with artys and the Jaguar with ACs. Now isn't that at least a bit strange ? I seem to recall a Tuxford's older post ( can't find it anymore, sorry ) where he stated that the Jaguar will lose its optimal range bonus and will be replaced with an speed bonus. Which might lead us to the conclusion that he ( at least indirectly ) admited that the Jag is a AC platform, and the optimal bonus is a waste on that ship. Apparently he changed his mind, and I wonder why.... In my opinion, the Wolf's falloff should be changed to a damage bonus, and the Jaguar's optimal bonus is the one that should be changed, not the tracking. I'd really like to hear a second opinion on this issue.
Leshrac Shepherd	Posted - 2006.06.06 23:52:00 - [2] It certainly would make more sense for the faster ship to be autocannon based.
Azmura	Posted - 2006.06.06 23:58:00 - [3] I'm an Min Af pilot, and I've always been told that Wolves are fitted with ACs and Jaguars with Arts were the norm.
Foulis	Posted - 2006.06.07 00:02:00 - [4] I've got 4 midslots, I'm happy. ---- Cake > Pie - Imaran Originally by: CCP Hammer Boobies
Kyguard	Posted - 2006.06.07 00:07:00 - [5] Originally by: Azmura I'm an Min Af pilot, and I've always been told that Wolves are fitted with ACs and Jaguars with Arts were the norm. I'm not at my home pc so can't check eve. But the bonuses on the jaguar were meant for arties, but the wolf's 4 lowslots, more guns made it better for arties.. I might be wrong.. having trouble remembering atm. === God is on the side with the best arti
Essque	Posted - 2006.06.07 00:13:00 - [6] Originally by: Azmura I'm an Min Af pilot, and I've always been told that Wolves are fitted with ACs and Jaguars with Arts were the norm. I don't think there is a norm to talk about, Azmura, and I tend to believe that it is actually exactly the other way around, at least for most pilots, and it surely does make sense to me. And this thread tends to prove my point.
Leshrac Shepherd	Posted - 2006.06.07 00:36:00 - [7] Originally by: Essque Originally by: Azmura I'm an Min Af pilot, and I've always been told that Wolves are fitted with ACs and Jaguars with Arts were the norm. I don't think there is a norm to talk about, Azmura, and I tend to believe that it is actually exactly the other way around, at least for most pilots, and it surely does make sense to me. And this thread tends to prove my point. Most solo setups on both jaguar and wolf carry autocannons, however, I think this has more to do with the fact that the dps on artilleries was a bit too weak (hopefully solved with the new bonus) and the fitting requeriments a bit too harsh than with the actual bonuses or layout of the ships.
Essque	Posted - 2006.06.07 00:51:00 - [8] Edited by: Essque on 07/06/2006 00:52:27 Sure, you can fit 280mm arty on a Jaguar, sacrificing your tank or speed mod, and dealing around 70 DPS, or you can go for 200mm ACs, fit a good tank, fly fast and deal over 100 DPS. Your call. I know exactly what I would choose. :) That's why I've posted this thread in the first place. Note: the damage calculated does not take the new bonuses in consideration. But the damage would move up accordingly for both arty and ACs when the new bonuses apply.
Vera Nosfyu	Posted - 2006.06.07 01:30:00 - [9] Iunno. I've always put AC's on both of them. ----------------------------------------------------------- "Violence solves all problems, no man, no problem." --Josef Stalin
Phelan Lore	Posted - 2006.06.07 01:52:00 - [10] NO Optimal bonus > tracking bonus
Jarra Wixx	Posted - 2006.06.07 10:33:00 - [11] -=WARNING: THIS POST DOES NOT USE REAL MATH FOR ADDING PERCENTAGES=- Unless I'm mistaken, on the new and improved jaguar, if you replace a gyro II from your old jaguar setup with a tracking comp II you'd get a ship that does 15% more damage and tracks 7.5% less efficently than your old jaguar. Seeing as how small guns track anything minus the extremely fast frigates just fine, it's a tradeoff I will gladly take. If you accept the fact that a tracking bonus for the smallest class of ship in game is a near pointless bonus and you'll never know the difference when it's gone but you'll be doing 25% more damage at AF V, you'll thank tux later. Just trust in what Tux has done for the Minmatar recently because they really are boosts and not nerfs then all can be forgiven for the target painter bonus (well, ok, not all is forgiven about that )
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.06.07 10:37:00 - [12] Originally by: Azmura I'm an Min Af pilot, and I've always been told that Wolves are fitted with ACs and Jaguars with Arts were the norm. I could quote half this thread, but instead Ill just quote this one guy. Let me be clear. *NO SHIP IS MEANT* TO USE ANY ONE KIND OF ANYTHING** Thankyou. Testy's Eve Blog, Updated 01/06/06 Someone sell me an Amarr Alt!
Sarmaul	Posted - 2006.06.07 11:20:00 - [13] Originally by: Foulis I've got 4 midslots, I'm happy. what he said. with the extra 25% damage, the jaguar has a damage output higher than the claw, prehardened shields and 4 midslots for tank/ewar/enhancers. And the reason people fit autocannons on the wolf is because you can fit a bloody huge plate along side it and rip ships to shreds, something that's only going to increase with the +25% damage on that ship too. 6 autos for the price of 4
Lonectzn	Posted - 2006.06.07 11:43:00 - [14] Originally by: Foulis I've got 4 midslots, I'm happy. That's pretty much it. That alone takes it from mediocre to wow. But then I'm a fan of mids on Minnies =) Minnie ships with lots of mids tend to be rather useful no? -----------------
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2006.06.07 11:43:00 - [15] I fit arties, dmg mods and dual webber on my jaguar. when it gets another midslot I will be able to dual web, have dmg mods and some tank on it. I am happy :)
Haniblecter Teg	Posted - 2006.06.07 12:21:00 - [16] I believe keeping the optimal would help AC's better. Because being able to orbit at a further distance means you dont need to track as well...I guess. It seems the jag is goign to be more of a tackler than anything, esp. with another midslot. Also, Proj's have waaay more falloff than optimal, so the wolf would be gaining ALOT of range, enough to smack harpy's me thinks. Although, I do agree with a post I read that wants to keep the tracking bonus on the jag...adn switch the optimal bonus to the damage bonus. idk, at this piont, any change would be a good one for the jag. ---------------------------------------- Friends Forever
Jet Collins	Posted - 2006.06.07 13:01:00 - [17] All I have to say is I'm happy with the changes.. More damage More damgage Muuhahahahaha
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.06.07 13:09:00 - [18] Originally by: Sarmaul Originally by: Foulis 6 autos for the price of 4 Finally, a reason to train assault frig beyond the level required to fly a Vagabond. Testy's Eve Blog, Updated 01/06/06 Someone sell me an Amarr Alt!
Essque	Posted - 2006.06.07 13:20:00 - [19] I never said it's a nerf, I was merely pointing out that in my opinion it could be done better. But if everybody's happy with the changes as they are I'll rest my case.
Leshrac Shepherd	Posted - 2006.06.07 13:45:00 - [20] Originally by: Essque I never said it's a nerf, I was merely pointing out that in my opinion it could be done better. But if everybody's happy with the changes as they are I'll rest my case. People are too happy about these ships being actually looked to care about range bonuses I do think that a little problem with the bonuses is that a falloff bonus is useful for any kind of projectile weapon but an optimal one is only useful in artillery. Versatility seems to be an important point of minnie ship design so it could be a good thing if the optimal bonus was changed to a falloff one. It is a very minor issue though, and I don't think anyone will lose sleep over it.
Essque	Posted - 2006.06.07 14:16:00 - [21] Leshrac - I'm sure you're perfectly right. I was just hoping to get a bit more support, because until they'll look into them again it's going to be a long time, so why not make them "perfect" ( don't take it literary, you know what I mean ) when we have the best chance to ?
Phelan Lore	Posted - 2006.06.07 14:52:00 - [22] Edited by: Phelan Lore on 07/06/2006 14:53:19 Originally by: Leshrac Shepherd I do think that a little problem with the bonuses is that a falloff bonus is useful for any kind of projectile weapon but an optimal one is only useful in artillery. Versatility seems to be an important point of minnie ship design so it could be a good thing if the optimal bonus was changed to a falloff one. It is a very minor issue though, and I don't think anyone will lose sleep over it. This is no longer true with T2 ammo. To get the most out of barrage ammo you need a falloff bonus. To get the most out of tremor ammo you need an optimal bonus.
Leshrac Shepherd	Posted - 2006.06.07 16:15:00 - [23] Originally by: Phelan Lore This is no longer true with T2 ammo. To get the most out of barrage ammo you need a falloff bonus. To get the most out of tremor ammo you need an optimal bonus. Yes, I agree that artilleries get much more out of an optimal bonus than from a falloff bonus. However, the point I was trying to make was that artilleries get more out of a falloff bonus than autocannons get out of an optimal one. So, for the sake of so called versatility it might make sense to change the optimal bonus to a falloff one, so that the bonus is useful no matter what projectile guns are fitted into the ship.
Phelan Lore	Posted - 2006.06.07 19:57:00 - [24] Edited by: Phelan Lore on 07/06/2006 19:58:18 Originally by: Leshrac Shepherd Originally by: Phelan Lore This is no longer true with T2 ammo. To get the most out of barrage ammo you need a falloff bonus. To get the most out of tremor ammo you need an optimal bonus. Yes, I agree that artilleries get much more out of an optimal bonus than from a falloff bonus. However, the point I was trying to make was that artilleries get more out of a falloff bonus than autocannons get out of an optimal one. So, for the sake of so called versatility it might make sense to change the optimal bonus to a falloff one, so that the bonus is useful no matter what projectile guns are fitted into the ship. ACs still work great without an falloff bonus. With a falloff bonus they get about 3km more falloff. Not that big a deal for small ACs... With an optimal bonus arties get about 15km more optimal on tremor. Arties only get 5km more falloff from a falloff bonus. I'd say that an optimal bonus makes the ship more versitile.
Grimpak	Posted - 2006.06.07 20:09:00 - [25] before: Jaguar -> "fast" AF with nice shield resists (xcept that damn kinetic hole), geared to artilery config, altho the speed of it makes it more of the opposite Wolf -> Slower, more armored, more powerfull but less versatile than jag. bonuses were geared to be able to be proficient with AC's and howies alike now: jaguar -> fast AC platform wolf -> powerfull AC platform ------- Originally by: Abdalion Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant? Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.

Pages: [1] :: 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.