| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
CobaltSixty
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
27
   |
Posted - 2011.12.08 06:50:00 -
[61] - Quote
sten mattson wrote:bump , cuz i feel like it! :p
also i agree on everything on the current state of the proposal
(2nd mid slot for the retri FTW!!)
Thank you for the... BUMP.
Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus |
sten mattson
The Spawning Pool
Team Liquid
11
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 13:34:00 -
[62] - Quote
pleasure's all mine :D
no dev response yet? :'( |
Leskit
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:23:00 -
[63] - Quote
Bump for good discussion!
I'll put up a 'real' reply later today once i'm home. I hope CCP looks into this thread. not only are the ideas in here quite good, but they're pretty well thought out and there is a lot of good, honest, respectful conversation happening. I'd love to have my old retribution actually be usefull...first t2 ship I ever got. still have it. |
Meditril
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
20
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 15:41:00 -
[64] - Quote
I think assault ships should just get a web invulnerability (15% per assault ship skill level) as 4th bonus. This will make them unique but not overpowered and it will significantly improve their use against larger targets and blobs. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
181
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:32:00 -
[65] - Quote
Meditril wrote:I think assault ships should just get a web invulnerability (15% per assault ship skill level) as 4th bonus. This will make them unique but not overpowered and it will significantly improve their use against larger targets and blobs. .
Do you seriously consider 1.5+k/s afterburning AFs for balanced? That would be the case for the Winmatar boats more or less ... you are essentially suggesting the exact same thing that CCP did with their idiot AB boost idea. Pump the speed directly through propulsion or by removing any hope of slowing them down .. makes no difference, they will be OP as hell against large AND small targets alike with staggering powergaps within the class itself (ie. WInmatar + Ishkur would be only ones flown).
Once more, since there are some tardy folks who want to contribute:
It is not possible to add a uniform combat relevant bonus to the class without breaking it.
|
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
33
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:33:00 -
[66] - Quote
Balance ships not bonuses. The "but this other thing has more bonuses" whine or "but the t1 version has better stat X" whine are just that; whines.
If players want more AF's being used then players need to come to a concensus about what the hell they are supposed to be used for. IF people want heavy tackle for gangs, then how do you make AFs that are not rediculous when they fight other frigate (and dessy) boats? If people want AF's to be top predators in frigate (and dessy) combat, then players must arrive at some consensus of what is precluding thier use already. The latter option will only see marginal increases in use, however, due to the current meta game. Either way, going about things in any other fashion is about as intelligent as throwing darts to assign boosts.
Personally, I think the best thing CCP could do to help AF (and EAF + dessies) would be to find ways increase the need for subCruiser gangs or at least sub t2Cruiser/BC gangs. |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
33
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 17:35:00 -
[67] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote: makes no difference, they will be OP as hell against large AND small targets alike with staggering powergaps within the class itself
This.
|
Leskit
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 23:00:00 -
[68] - Quote
First off, I think all of the changes fall between satisfactory and great. I hope we can get a higher up CCP dev to look into this post...a lot of the work would have been done for them and they just have to make sure it doesn't uber buff these things 
I think Sigras has the right idea:
Sigras wrote:++ for the vengeance
while I see this boost as a step in the right direction, It still doesnt give assault ships a role that cant be fulfilled better by their interceptor counterparts . . .
I see them fulfilling a role such as heavy tackle, but the problem seems twofold:
1. Theyre too slow with an AB and too easy to kill with an MWD
2. Neuts are lethal and can prevent them from doing their heavy tackle job
Maybe you see them for a different role than I do but I just dont see them fulfilling a damage role when there are such tougher higher damage ships out there.
Part of the problem is that inty's do descent damage with their speed. I think a base speed boost for all the ships would be helpfull. being frigates, speed is their greatest defence. Therefore:
Amarr, Gallente, and harpy: 10% bonus to base speed. Hawk and matari af's: 5% or 7.5% to base speed. play with the numbers a little, I know it seems odd to not do a flat change across all of them. The goal with that is to avoid making already popular winmatar even better.
One thing to keep in mind is that one of the most uniform rules in eve is that the shorter the range of the weapon (base stats), the more damage it does. hams vs hm's, arties vs ac's.
Ines Tegator wrote:The problem with these discussions - and why there are so many ideas- is that noone can decide what AF's are supposed to do.
[quote=Ines Tegator I suggest to following (somewhat obvious) role: they assault things. To be more specific, they should be a rapid assault platform that brings quick strike ability and mobility to a small gang.
I suggest the following straightforward bonus to define this.
Role Bonus: Increases the Turret Signal Resolution/Missile Explosion Radius (as appropriate for hull) and also increases damage..
This. their role has been thought of as heavy tackle, anti frigate support, or even anti-drones.
Here is my comparison: hac gangs are SO popular because they can move faster than a battleships's guns can track and they have enough tank and gank to burn through cruisers before working onto the bs's. AF's should have the same basic role; be a threat that a cruiser simply can't handle without something designed to hit frigs (uber tracking, smaller guns, dual webs, etc). hence the slight speed increase. I see the biggest problem for AF's is they have to stay within the 10km range of webs which is the largest reason they die (but light drone swarms is close too).
If you look at their cruiser counterparts, they can roughly be devided into 2 groups: range bonuses (lighter tank, less utility slots) and close range with tougher tank, more utility slots. I know you don't like the idea of splitting them into roles, but given the web danger to af's it might be worth looking into.
This also opens up the can of worms called faction frigates and EAF's but that's for another day. |
Leskit
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.09 23:00:00 -
[69] - Quote
double post...sorry...
Anyway, if they do get a *small* speed boost what we'll end up seeing is moure double web/blood/rapiers in cruiser gangs, which would add a little more diversity as well as using up mid slots on cruiser gangs for defence agaisnt af's instead of i-win-at-everything fits. |
tankus2
Endless Destruction
Imperial Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2011.12.10 02:52:00 -
[70] - Quote
Good to see that this thread is still alive, though bad that a dev has yet to show any form of affection.
Thinking from the Caldari side of things (as always), the new Hawk bonus line-up is superior to the first proposal. Baby Cerb indeed ^_^
Where the science gets done |
Onyx47
U-208
Rote Kapelle
7
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 23:10:00 -
[71] - Quote
Cynoing this thing from 4th page back to top.
Nothing to add, +1
In PvP there are no winners, only losers. The trick is to be less of a loser than the guy you're shooting at. |
Forest Baltar
Orion's Fist
RED.Legion
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 00:36:00 -
[72] - Quote
Bumping for the hoarde.
|
tankus2
Endless Destruction
Imperial Ascension
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 02:16:00 -
[73] - Quote
no one else has anything to add? are we all in agreeance that this should be done ASAP?
This would be certainly a LOT easier to pull off than, say, some pi thread
Where the science gets done |
CobaltSixty
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.14 19:41:00 -
[74] - Quote
Bump for visibility.
Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus |
Residium Fall
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 01:34:00 -
[75] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:My take:
Damage AFs = More damage and ganglink fitting bonus.
Utility AFs = better cap plus RR range and efficiency bonus
Oh for the love of God yes, this really should have got more love.
The problem with the current very lovely proposal in the first post remains that they still (generally) lack a role beyond being slightly shinier T1 Frigates.
Giving them something extra targeted towards being a gang ship rather than generic 1v1 tank/gank would push them into the role they were seemingly intended for, devastatingly useful in small, well coordinated gangs but counterable by something a little more exotic, significantly bigger or the blob.
The quoted suggestion would achieve this beautifully with the added bonus of not absurdly overpowering them when used by the lovely people who sit in Hek, drop their cans and beg for fights :)
*shrugs* Just my 2 cents. Kudos to the OP, nice to see discussion move beyond whining about the 4th bonus :) |
Zarnak Wulf
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
142
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 22:23:00 -
[76] - Quote
Here is a very radical idea - why not kill off half the AF? Give each race one to fly. We could then focus on roles and bonuses alot easier. As it stands right now AF are very confused. They have lots of firepower and the ability to tank. But they die horribly in scramble range because of neuts, drones, and webs.
Imagine the Jaguar with the following bonuses: damage, tracking, damage and falloff. It would have a decent tank and be able to project decent firepower. It could deal with drones somewhat better. It would still be slower then other frigate types. We can also look at role bonuses easier as you don't have to balance the class against itself so much. |
CobaltSixty
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
30
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 01:22:00 -
[77] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Imagine the Jaguar with the following bonuses: damage, tracking, damage and falloff. It would have a decent tank and be able to project decent firepower. It could deal with drones somewhat better. It would still be slower then other frigate types. We can also look at role bonuses easier as you don't have to balance the class against itself so much.
Have you checked the most recent version (last updated Dec. 2nd) of the Jaguar proposal? It's basically exactly the same bonus set as you've described except one of the damages is a rate-of-fire instead. This would further enhance the ability to deal with drones while bringing some consistency to the bonii applied to Thukker Mix vessels.
Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus |
M1AU
Farstriders
New Eden Industrie Alliance
34
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 01:34:00 -
[78] - Quote
There are some good and easy to implement proposals in the Ops post, keep it up. |
tankus2
Endless Destruction
Imperial Ascension
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 01:47:00 -
[79] - Quote
this thread needs more likes. many, many more
Where the science gets done |
Forest Baltar
Orion's Fist
RED.Legion
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.23 02:04:00 -
[80] - Quote
tankus2 wrote:this thread needs more likes. many, many more
You can say that again! This thread is something that needs to be implemented...
Forest |
tankus2
Endless Destruction
Imperial Ascension
21
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 04:57:00 -
[81] - Quote
what is this thread doing without both a dev actually giving their piece (even a simple 'nein' would be nice, if the case) AND not on the first page?
back ye go
Where the science gets done |
Alara IonStorm
689
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 05:32:00 -
[82] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=49685&find=unread
CCP luvs you all.
Never Forget It!  |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
200
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 14:10:00 -
[83] - Quote
Hahahaha. Those preliminary changes would make them so OP it isnt even funny. T1 fit AFs would dwarf officer fit pirate frigs for Goddess sake .. extra slots AND more bonuses ....
No wonder CCP has had issues sorting them if they start at the utmost extreme and then whittle away on them .. waste of time.
PS: Drool at prospect of Retribution with not only the original god-range but with god-tracking and 2nd mid .. trolololol. |
tankus2
Endless Destruction
Imperial Ascension
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 04:05:00 -
[84] - Quote
I'm guessing CCP doesn't do as much research in their own game than just pukes up ideas, implements them, then fixes them as needed.
Where the science gets done |
Mfume Apocal
Origin.
Black Legion.
168
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 08:21:00 -
[85] - Quote
tankus2 wrote:I'm guessing CCP doesn't do as much research in their own game than just pukes up ideas, implements them, then fixes them as needed.
They give them OP stats to begin testing and nerf from there (remember the 90% web Talos?). It's not a terrible way of doing things. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
200
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 09:53:00 -
[86] - Quote
Mfume Apocal wrote:They give them OP stats to begin testing and nerf from there (remember the 90% web Talos?). It's not a terrible way of doing things.
For sure, it is a very reasonable way to sort out new ships prior to introducing them, but to balance existing ships within a very crowded weight-class and you are better off going at it in reverse, that is tweak upwards rather than downwards. Not a whole lot of room to maneuvre in the light class before you end up having to changing everything. |
CobaltSixty
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
36
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 03:04:00 -
[87] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:For sure, it is a very reasonable way to sort out new ships prior to introducing them, but to balance existing ships within a very crowded weight-class and you are better off going at it in reverse, that is tweak upwards rather than downwards. Not a whole lot of room to maneuvre in the light class before you end up having to changing everything.
I have to agree with Hirana here - for pre-existing ships, fine adjustments of the ships in relation to the rest of the class is the way to go. After that is complete, the necessity and specifics of a flat role bonus for the class can be evaluated separately as it will significantly alter how they compare to other classes.
Currently, Assault Ships have 10 or 11 slots. My proposal for the lineup saw the first of the class with 12 slots - the Vengeance - and I agree that it may very well be necessary to bring up the bottom end (Ishkur with 10) to compensate but not every ship needs a new slot to stay competitive with these changes. I don't want to comment any further on the Chaos build changes as they're far from final. I will say that I am encouraged by the direction the devs seem to be going with this and was very humbled to see a lot of the bonus proposals make it into preliminary testing. The extent to which they took it has given me a lot to think about, so keep your eyes peeled for further revisions this week.
Thanks to everyone who has pitched in thus far with commentary and keeping this thread visible. Please keep it up!
Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus |
Xindi Kraid
The Night Wardens
Viro Mors Non Est
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 13:22:00 -
[88] - Quote
I haven't flown every single frigate extensively (Sadly, there are some situations where you HAVE to take a bigger ship, else I would have never trained battleships), but I do know my way around small craft.
I think these proposals are much better than what CCP wants to do. The biggest thing is that they seem to be buffing all the ships evenly, when some need more help than others. I am also unsure about the MWD bonus. I'm sure it will help survivability, but it just doesn't seem right. When I hear the descriptor 'assault' I think of something that can take a few solid hits that is capable of maiming things. As frigates, they should still be speedy, but I'd rather see a bonus that lets them punch a class up. |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
80
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 21:02:00 -
[89] - Quote
The MWD bonus on Chaos is exactly what AF's need. However, it's also exactly what every frigate in the game needs. It seems to me to be a waste of a role bonus, and should be rolled into the base stats of the 1mn module. I'd rather see this, and then have each AF hull balanced with a unique 4th bonus in the way that HACs are.
The other changes on chaos don't do much to fix the disparity between the hulls (retribution excepted). Minmatar and Ishkur are still ahead in every area and everyone else is playing catch up. But at least it's going the right direction. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
206
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 22:00:00 -
[90] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:The MWD bonus on Chaos is exactly what AF's need. However, it's also exactly what every frigate in the game needs. It seems to me to be a waste of a role bonus, and should be rolled into the base stats of the 1mn module...
Oy, that brain-fart is mine you hear, MINE!. 
Otherwise yea, disparity within the class remains .. still more concerned about all the other lights (and most cruisers) that will be completely overshadowed by cruiser-power AFs though.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |