Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tornii
Infinite Point DARKNESS.
78
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 19:11:33 -
[1] - Quote
In a clear demonstration of how tricky the EVE ship balancing structure is, the interceptor bubble immunity and the recent introduction of tactical destroyers have pushed the assault frigate class to the brink of complete uselessness. Their MWD role bonus counts for nothing now, and they have no niche role, which - in the complicated system that involves so many ships of similar performance - is the only way to make all ships more or less worthwhile.
So, I believe some advanced brainstorming on ideas to make this ship class viable again would be welcome and timely. I hope to see suggestions based on reasoning, i.e. what would give AFs a unique role and encourage pilots to pick them over other ships, while also not dissuading people from bringing other ships - for their own unique roles - to fleets?
I will contribute with my own ideas in a subsequent post in this thread.
P.S. I searched for recent threads on assault frigs but the only one that's still open for replies was exclusively on their comparison to HACs, while this thread I hope will serve a broader discussion.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 19:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
AFs are still pretty good if you avoid t3ds. They're still the best frigates for brawling and fighting up ship. The current RLML plague is an issue too, but I think if we wait for a t3d balance pass (and hopefully nerfs to the svipul and confessor) we'd be a little better poised to see how AF balance really stands in the meta. That would be the appropriate time to give them a polish pass. |
Lyra Gerie
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 20:17:06 -
[3] - Quote
Would a blanket reduction in sig radius (in addition to their MWD penalty reduction) help? This would work well with the new logi frigates in being very hard to hit and would only compound when using a MWD as there is even more reduction in sig size. |
Valacus
Streets of Fire
71
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 20:27:27 -
[4] - Quote
Remove T3Ds from existence. Problem solved.
/thread |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
684
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 21:34:37 -
[5] - Quote
One thing AF need is a cap buff/overhaul. Is that all they need? Probably not, but lets see what happens after t3d rebalance and how it settles.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1251
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 22:16:17 -
[6] - Quote
AF's are largely fine, some minor tweaks with some ships bonuses/stats perhaps, but the main issue is OP D3's and RLML's
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2000
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 22:17:51 -
[7] - Quote
Valacus wrote:Remove T3Ds from existence. Problem solved.
/thread
This is not a viable or constructive answer. Now, it might be fair to say that T3D's should never have been introduced, but removing them now would do more harm than good.
Giving Assault Ships some form of mild afterburner bonus or web resistance are possibilities that have been thrown out before. Both these solutions probably require CCP to fix the oversized AB cancer (which would also fix T3D's and T3C's).
Another suggestion would be giving them mild forms of electronic warfare resistance. This, making sensor dampeners, ECM, webs, weapon disruption, and neutralizing 15-25% less effective against Assault Frigates might go a long way towards giving them a viable role.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
689
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 00:07:09 -
[8] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Valacus wrote:Remove T3Ds from existence. Problem solved.
/thread This is not a viable or constructive answer. Now, it might be fair to say that T3D's should never have been introduced, but removing them now would do more harm than good. Giving Assault Ships some form of mild afterburner bonus or web resistance are possibilities that have been thrown out before. Both these solutions probably require CCP to fix the oversized AB cancer (which would also fix T3D's and T3C's). Another suggestion would be giving them mild forms of electronic warfare resistance. This, making sensor dampeners, ECM, webs, weapon disruption, and neutralizing 15-25% less effective against Assault Frigates might go a long way towards giving them a viable role.
Honestly i think they're decent assuming you dont fight t3ds, but do need some massaging in certain areas (cap as mentioned earlier). Some of the traits being tweaked would be good too.
Examples on wolf/jag.
Roll the double damage bonus into 1 trait. So instead of 2 25% bonuses. Give it one 50% bonus (10% per level) and use the new trait slot for shield boost bonus on jag and maybe a second falloff bonus on the wolf. Give the wolf a bit more cpu and the jag a bit more grid.
Ishkur
Just let it use 5 drones from the start, change that trait to armor rep amount.
Just a couple examples. I think addressing them more in making them flexible rather than having another "special" gimmick that is unique to one class of ship is the better route.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
1375
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 00:24:49 -
[9] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Valacus wrote:Remove T3Ds from existence. Problem solved.
/thread This is not a viable or constructive answer. Now, it might be fair to say that T3D's should never have been introduced, but removing them now would do more harm than good. Giving Assault Ships some form of mild afterburner bonus or web resistance are possibilities that have been thrown out before. Both these solutions probably require CCP to fix the oversized AB cancer (which would also fix T3D's and T3C's). Another suggestion would be giving them mild forms of electronic warfare resistance. This, making sensor dampeners, ECM, webs, weapon disruption, and neutralizing 15-25% less effective against Assault Frigates might go a long way towards giving them a viable role. Honestly i think they're decent assuming you dont fight t3ds, but do need some massaging in certain areas (cap as mentioned earlier). Some of the traits being tweaked would be good too. Examples on wolf/jag. Roll the double damage bonus into 1 trait. So instead of 2 25% bonuses. Give it one 50% bonus (10% per level) and use the new trait slot for shield boost bonus on jag and maybe a second falloff bonus on the wolf. Give the wolf a bit more cpu and the jag a bit more grid. Ishkur Just let it use 5 drones from the start, change that trait to armor rep amount. Just a couple examples. I think addressing them more in making them flexible rather than having another "special" gimmick that is unique to one class of ship is the better route.
Yeah FLEXIBLE T2 ships
and SPECIALIZED T3 ships...
This is the exact opposite of what was proposed by CCP.
I think it is clear that Assault Frigates need a Specialization as they are T2. + I think a cool idea would allow them to run MWDs even while scrammed, would be niche and powerful + Immunity to Stasis Webifiers would be amazing. + A 50% E-War Resistance (like the balanced capitals are getting)
I think it is clear that T3Ds are Flexible and that was the intent of the T3 design.
Now with 100% less Troll.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
690
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 00:41:45 -
[10] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Valacus wrote:Remove T3Ds from existence. Problem solved.
/thread This is not a viable or constructive answer. Now, it might be fair to say that T3D's should never have been introduced, but removing them now would do more harm than good. Giving Assault Ships some form of mild afterburner bonus or web resistance are possibilities that have been thrown out before. Both these solutions probably require CCP to fix the oversized AB cancer (which would also fix T3D's and T3C's). Another suggestion would be giving them mild forms of electronic warfare resistance. This, making sensor dampeners, ECM, webs, weapon disruption, and neutralizing 15-25% less effective against Assault Frigates might go a long way towards giving them a viable role. Honestly i think they're decent assuming you dont fight t3ds, but do need some massaging in certain areas (cap as mentioned earlier). Some of the traits being tweaked would be good too. Examples on wolf/jag. Roll the double damage bonus into 1 trait. So instead of 2 25% bonuses. Give it one 50% bonus (10% per level) and use the new trait slot for shield boost bonus on jag and maybe a second falloff bonus on the wolf. Give the wolf a bit more cpu and the jag a bit more grid. Ishkur Just let it use 5 drones from the start, change that trait to armor rep amount. Just a couple examples. I think addressing them more in making them flexible rather than having another "special" gimmick that is unique to one class of ship is the better route. Yeah FLEXIBLE T2 ships and SPECIALIZED T3 ships... This is the exact opposite of what was proposed by CCP. I think it is clear that Assault Frigates need a Specialization as they are T2. + I think a cool idea would allow them to run MWDs even while scrammed, would be niche and powerful + Immunity to Stasis Webifiers would be amazing. + A 50% E-War Resistance (like the balanced capitals are getting) I think it is clear that T3Ds are Flexible and that was the intent of the T3 design.
Talk about being triggered. Did you spit out your cheetos and mountain dew when you saw "flexible"?
What i recommended literally changed nothing about what theyre specialized in. They are still heavy tackle and those changes would make them even better at that role. What i mean by flexibility is in how they fit. Meaning theyre still heavy tackle, but opens more fitting options so they can perform that role better.
As to your recommendations.. are you high? MWD sig reduction and cant be scrammed? So.. no defense unless you have 2 webs and neuts? Geez.. that sounds an aweful lot like t3ds. You know, that class of ship you were raging about just now. Creating a new cancer meta is not the desired result.
And you are really disconnected if you want all those bonuses at the same time (immune to scram/webs and 50% EWAR).
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2001
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 01:13:12 -
[11] - Quote
Stitch, you know better than I do, since I never fly Assault Frigates. I have owned many of them, but every time I think I might want one, I end up flying an Interdictor or Interceptor instead. I do not usually join Harpy fleets (and those have been replaced with Svipul fleets anyway). For the small 0.0 gangs in which I usually participate these days, the specialties of the Interdictor and the Interceptor are just too powerful to ignore.
Edit - Out of curiosity, I just checked my stats for my small ship specialist pilot. She has Assault Ships trained to V. She has never lost an Assault Frigate or killed anything with one, but she has lost 59 Interdictors and 17 Interceptors. I'd say that is a decent reflection on the state of Assault Frigates in small gang 0.0 PVP.
I do think they need a specialization, but one that is not just a straight buff to existing stats. In other words, I would rather see neutralizers or webs be slightly less effective against them, than give them more cap recharge or base speed or whatever. It does not need to be that over the top.
Or, if you did give them a larger bonus to electronic warfare resistance, separate it by racial specialties. So, just as Amarr ships have a high base resistance to Minmatar damage types, the Amarr Assault Frigates could get an electronic warfare resistance to Minmatar electronic warfare. And vice versa. Or something like that.
With that said, if you have one race resistances to webs and another resistances to neutralizers, that would pretty much automatically make those the two best races for Assault Frigates, since those two modules are very common and nearly universal.
So, what I might do is as follows:
All Assault Frigates get e-war resistance to webs and neutralizers. I am a Marine, not a mathematician, so I would say no more than 10-25%, depending on how you do the math, and how it balances out. Then for each race, give them a niche:
Amarr - target painters are 10-25% less effective. Minmatar - weapon disruption is 10-25% less effective. Caldari - sensor dampeners are 10-25% less effective. Gallente - ECM is 10-25% less effective.
Could be interesting... Just spitballing to see what sticks.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
437
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 01:52:00 -
[12] - Quote
This topic has been brought up before, so instead of my knee jerk response of l2s, I'll just repeat the idea I had last time:
Be able to fit and have bonuses for cruiser sized weapons. Ishkur would be the loser here, but brawling is what they were for(assfrigs), so give them all lead lined gloves.
The cake is not a lie. Unfortunately, the fork is a parallel construction.
|
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
222
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 02:04:11 -
[13] - Quote
Make a small weapon that works well against Teddies (T3Ds), then make sure only AFs can equip them. Balance it so that the two types are roughly evenly matched.
I can has blogging skills!
|
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise Apocalypse Now.
172
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 06:32:39 -
[14] - Quote
I used to enjoy flying AF
Now I normally fly hero/crazy tackle.
I don't know numbers, but CPU/PG probably needs looked at. And I do throw my voice behind immunity to MWD scram vs the sig reduction. A heavy frigate tackle, that only gets slower by webs/neuts would be great.
"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger
All of his fury and rage.
He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels"
- The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1
DIDE- is open to new members
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2761
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 06:47:52 -
[15] - Quote
Keep pouting about how AFs are no good, and just don't fly them. I'll keep using my cheap T2 pocket destroyers thank you very much.
Seriously, there's nothing wrong with AFs. Tactical destroyers are a little OP and so they are kind of beating everything except RLML ships because RLMLs are OP, which leads to tactical destroyers and RLML cruisers online, and that is not a healthy environment for AFs.
AFs are fine. OP stuff isn't fine.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
Tom Gerard
Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan
1375
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 07:19:41 -
[16] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Keep pouting about how AFs are no good, and just don't fly them. I'll keep using my cheap T2 pocket destroyers thank you very much.
Seriously, there's nothing wrong with AFs. Tactical destroyers are a little OP and so they are kind of beating everything except RLML ships because RLMLs are OP, which leads to tactical destroyers and RLML cruisers online, and that is not a healthy environment for AFs.
AFs are fine. OP stuff isn't fine.
I agree AFs might need a nerf, I highly suggest removing T2 resists and reducing their speed significantly
Now with 100% less Troll.
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
804
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 09:22:46 -
[17] - Quote
There's a few needing fitting help.
Which made me wonder, what would happen if we gave them extra slots and fitting...You know, like the opposite of drone hulls -1 slot, give them some extras. Give them the space for more toys and the fitting to use them or a bonus to fitting things to stop mega tanks or not, mega tanked frigs are awesome. |
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
57
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 12:12:28 -
[18] - Quote
What do EAF's do? A: they provide harsh Ewar power.
What do Interceptors do? A: they catch people trying to get away (on grid, or in warp).
What do AF's do? A: ???
You can't balance ships in the dark. you have to answer that question first. Do they bring blistering dps in a frig platform? Probably not helpful when Dessie's (t2 &t3) will always do more dps in a small portable platform. Or T1 cruisers. Do they heavy tackle? That's a viable role for them... What about survival. Most frigs have a hard time living in hard situations with lots of scrams webs and light missiles.
What about changing the mwd bloom to a scramble immunity so they can't be screened from hard tackling with other frontline ships. Then re bonus them for a little bit of dps, with huge tank bonus's. A format like this:
T1 ship skill:
10% to damage per level (3 guns on all of them) 4% to resists to tank type
AF ship skill:
7.5% to boost/ rep amount to tank type _______ racial flavor bonus.
Hybrid tracking for the enyo Drone tracking for the ishkur Optimal for the harpy Explosion velocity for hawk Falloff for the wolf Tracking for the jaguar Optimal for the retribution Cap recharge for the vengeance
With a mwd scrambler immunity role bonus instead of a wig bloom. |
Rek Seven
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
2121
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 12:35:23 -
[19] - Quote
I never agreed with the MWD sig reduction bonus and argued for them to have a bonus to AB velocity instead. However, CCP obviously didn't agree and thus, these things are what they are.
That said AF's are fine. They can take on other frigates and cruisers (depending on the fit) but they are countered by destroyer, as intended.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
15441
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 12:43:12 -
[20] - Quote
The problem with AFs, and with frigates in general, is that the new destroyers outperform them in every way that matters in this game. (Let's not even pretend like cost is a factor at that ship size)
The major reason for this is the speed the new destroyers are capable of attaining. It is reasonable for T3 and the new T2 destroyers to outpace most frigates in tank and firepower, they are a larger ship class after all. But what is not reasonable is their speed.
In addition to this, AFs very badly lack a niche of their own, they are designed to be tankier, shootier versions of T1 frigates. This means that they are sorely outclassed and invalidated by the new destroyers in every way.
Solutions?
#1. Ban oversize prop mods from each and every ship in the game. Notably, this solves more problems than just T3 destroyers, it solves T3 cruisers and a few others as well.
#2. Assault frigates no longer use cap for activating an afterburner(-100% use of cap role bonus). This gives them a niche, albeit a minor one, staying power. They're not just popping in and out for bursts of speed, instead they are relentless pursuers.
#3. A sensor strength boost or preferably a big helping of that new ewar resistance. Assault Frigates should be like an attack dog, you can't shake them off, you have to kill them.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Cristl
264
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 15:57:58 -
[21] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:The problem with AFs, and with frigates in general, is that the new destroyers outperform them in every way that matters in this game. (Let's not even pretend like cost is a factor at that ship size)
The major reason for this is the speed the new destroyers are capable of attaining. It is reasonable for T3 and the new T2 destroyers to outpace most frigates in tank and firepower, they are a larger ship class after all. But what is not reasonable is their speed.
In addition to this, AFs very badly lack a niche of their own, they are designed to be tankier, shootier versions of T1 frigates. This means that they are sorely outclassed and invalidated by the new destroyers in every way.
Solutions?
#1. Ban oversize prop mods from each and every ship in the game. Notably, this solves more problems than just T3 destroyers, it solves T3 cruisers and a few others as well.
#2. Assault frigates no longer use cap for activating an afterburner(-100% use of cap role bonus). This gives them a niche, albeit a minor one, staying power. They're not just popping in and out for bursts of speed, instead they are relentless pursuers.
#3. A sensor strength boost or preferably a big helping of that new ewar resistance. Assault Frigates should be like an attack dog, you can't shake them off, you have to kill them. The rottweiler protocol, I love this.
Maybe keep a reduced MWD role bonus too, so there is still a choice to be made between AB/MWD/Dual prop.
Also, possibly introduce sensible middle options for prop mods (3, 30 MN ABs; 15,150 MN MWDs) to keep some fitting choices open for 'oversize' props that aren't over the top? |
Tornii
Infinite Point DARKNESS.
78
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 16:33:52 -
[22] - Quote
I looked through suggestions and one recurring theme is the "AFs are fine, they can sand up to X" comment. While that might (or might not) be true, the point is that the AFs are TII ship class and should thus feature a specialised niche role at which they would excel and for which they would be picked for fleets over other ships by some pilots.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Tornii
Infinite Point
78
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 18:50:23 -
[23] - Quote
So, my reasoning while exploring what could become a a distinctive role for AFs was as follows: their special role can't be either tackle (that's an already overcrowded niche with ceptors being light tackle, recons being long-range tackle and HICs being heavy tackle) or DPS/range (that cuts into destroyers' territory, especially with that class having only recently reclaimed the anti-support role, plus the TDs having their own say in the damage/range area).
With EWAR role also occupied by other specialised ships, the only idea I could think of was to make AFs specialised anti-big ship brawling type. How about giving them reduced received neut+web bonus that would enable AFs to maintain their cap and speed tank against cruisers, BCs and BSs? That would make the ship class live up to its title.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
344
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 19:13:17 -
[24] - Quote
You cannot look at AFs in isolation as the overlap between tactical destroyers and AFs is crucial. The reason tactical destroyers are so good is due to their signature to tank ratio.
It is actually quite easy to fix AFs, you just need to correct this ratio between AFs and tactical destroyers.
Best way to do this imo is below.
1. Increase the signature radius of tactical destroyers across the board.
2. Improve the signature to tank ratio on AFs, I would do this by changing their role bonus to 50% afterburner velocity and MWD signature reduction bonus.
On a side not I would also confer this bonus to HACs for consistency and to give them a slight buff.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
344
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 19:18:38 -
[25] - Quote
Tornii wrote:...the only idea I could think of was to make AFs specialised anti-big ship brawling type. How about giving them reduced received neut+web bonus that would enable AFs to maintain their cap and speed tank against cruisers, BCs and BSs? That would make the ship class live up to its title. Their current role is pretty much as you already describe imo, the only issue is that tactical destroyers do it much better. Increasing the signature of tactical destroyers will mean bigger ships will have an easier time hitting them, and then that will mean that AFs will once again become the preferred ship for this role helped with the addition of an AB bonus.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Tornii
Infinite Point
78
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 19:22:30 -
[26] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Tornii wrote:...the only idea I could think of was to make AFs specialised anti-big ship brawling type. How about giving them reduced received neut+web bonus that would enable AFs to maintain their cap and speed tank against cruisers, BCs and BSs? That would make the ship class live up to its title. Their current role is pretty much as you already describe imo, the only issue is that tactical destroyers do it much better. Increasing the signature of tactical destroyers will mean bigger ships will have an easier time hitting them, and then that will mean that AFs will once again become the preferred ship for this role helped with the addition of an AB bonus. I can't recall AFs being efficient in anti-big ship role with all the medium/heavy neuts and webs the latter carry. Both while using AFs myself and seeing other people go up against bigger ships equipped with neuts/webs, I have always seen one outcome, and that was never in favour of the AFs.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
345
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 20:33:30 -
[27] - Quote
Tornii wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Tornii wrote:...the only idea I could think of was to make AFs specialised anti-big ship brawling type. How about giving them reduced received neut+web bonus that would enable AFs to maintain their cap and speed tank against cruisers, BCs and BSs? That would make the ship class live up to its title. Their current role is pretty much as you already describe imo, the only issue is that tactical destroyers do it much better. Increasing the signature of tactical destroyers will mean bigger ships will have an easier time hitting them, and then that will mean that AFs will once again become the preferred ship for this role helped with the addition of an AB bonus. I can't recall AFs being efficient in anti-big ship role with all the medium/heavy neuts and webs the latter carry. Both while using AFs myself and seeing other people go up against bigger ships equipped with neuts/webs, I have always seen one outcome, and that was never in favour of the AFs. With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships. The problem is that tactical destroyers are even better. I can't even contemplate attacking a tactical destroyer in a lot of BCs and BSs.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
78
|
Posted - 2015.12.13 06:59:04 -
[28] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships. Excuse me but you keep skipping my point that generic performance elements like sig radius and speed that were designed to serve that goal are completely negated by neuts and webs. Theory is one thing, practice is another, which is why AFs are so severely underfeatured in the game ATM.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
348
|
Posted - 2015.12.13 15:32:50 -
[29] - Quote
Tornii wrote:Moac Tor wrote:With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships. You keep skipping my point that generic performance elements like sig radius and speed that were designed to serve that goal are completely negated by neuts and webs. Theory is one thing, practice is another, which is why AFs are so severely underfeatured in the game ATM. "completely negated by neuts and webs" Not at all, unless your facing a 90% or dual webbed battleships which isn't common, then AFs are not completely negated. And heavy nuets have such a long cycle time they are easy for AFs to counter.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
79
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 09:21:21 -
[30] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Tornii wrote:Moac Tor wrote:With a small sig and good tank it is elementary that AFs are good vs larger ships. You keep skipping my point that generic performance elements like sig radius and speed that were designed to serve that goal are completely negated by neuts and webs. Theory is one thing, practice is another, which is why AFs are so severely underfeatured in the game ATM. "completely negated by neuts and webs" Not at all, unless your facing a 90% or dual webbed battleships which isn't common, then AFs are not completely negated. And heavy nuets have such a long cycle time they are easy for AFs to counter. Again, lots of theory while practice shows something else. Pilots of big ships have long understood it's better to have medium neuts for negating frigate threat, or mix different sized neuts for timing their activation in a way that keeps frigates capless, and helpless. And a single web combined with neuts and drones is more than enough to negate any chance of possible threat from small ships. That is why I suggested the reduced neut/web effect on AFs as a way of making them worthwhile and giving them a viable niche role.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |