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
|
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
348
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 13:00:20 -
[31] - Quote
Tornii wrote: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. The amount of cap drained is practically irrelevant for a frigate, it is the cycle time of the neut that really hurts. It is very easy to counter medium and heavy neuts in a small ship (unless they have a lot of stagger them or have a bonus to cycle time such as a talisman implants). You don't seem to understand basic stuff though so nothing personal but you really shouldn't be commenting on assault frigate balance.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
79
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 16:09:46 -
[32] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Tornii wrote: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. The amount of cap drained is practically irrelevant for a frigate, it is the cycle time of the neut that really hurts. It is very easy to counter medium and heavy neuts in a small ship (unless they have a lot of stagger them or have a bonus to cycle time such as a talisman implants). You don't seem to understand basic stuff though so nothing personal but you really shouldn't be commenting on assault frigate balance. Excuse me but you just spent an entire effort of that post to point out something already referred to (now highlighted) in my previous comment, i.e. the fact that multiple neuts spread out and timed at various points mean frigate caps are constantly drained. Nothing personal but all you've done so far is waste your own time and mine reiterating theoretical frigate performance data to suggest it makes them viable against big ships while practical application of their counters proves that to be false.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1670
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 16:38:41 -
[33] - Quote
The MWD bonus for AF was bad to begin with. Interceptors are the high speed kiting / tackle frigate. AF are the close in 'heavy' frigate tackle ships. You want to get them back in the mix - drop the misguided MWD bonus. Give them an AB role bonus and a web resistance bonus.
Give AF the ability to bore in and tackle something and hold onto it until the fleet can drop the hammer on its prey. This would give AF a role.
Their role and the construction of their role should never be to make them a solo powerhouse (that shouldn't be the role of any ship).
I think a lot of the balance issues w/ T3 destroyers is that you can instantly swap between 3 roles and (OMG... who would have thought) poof they are OP. The mode swap instawarp puts them over the top. (I'd recommend a 4 second mode swap c/d before a T3 can enter warp - you could call it a 'combat commitment' feature) |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
352
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 21:39:43 -
[34] - Quote
Tornii wrote:Excuse me but you just spent an entire effort of that post to point out something already referred to (now highlighted) in my previous comment, i.e. the fact that multiple neuts spread out and timed at various points mean frigate caps are constantly drained. Nothing personal but all you've done so far is waste your own time and mine reiterating theoretical frigate performance data to suggest it makes them viable against big ships while practical application of their counters proves that to be false. So then why were you suggesting that AFs should have a nuet resistance if you, as you now claim to understand, that neut amount negligible compared to the neut cycle time. Are you suggesting the AF should slow down the targets neut cycle time? Sorry you are all over the place and digging yourself deeper.
I actually agree with your original sentiment that AFs need to be buffed, it is a shame that you are now attacking me for pointing out a flaw in your proposal when I am actually on your side here.
Like I said before, give AFs a 50% afterburner bonus (which is actually a form of web resistance) alongside their current 50% MWD sig radius bonus, and then increase the sig radius of tactical destroyers so that they don't encroach on AFs role.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
951
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 21:47:19 -
[35] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:... The mode swap instawarp puts them over the top. (I'd recommend a 4 second mode swap c/d before a T3 can enter warp - you could call it a 'combat commitment' feature)
Or just call it as it would turn out - a hilariously expensive destroyer lossmail.
People still don't understand that the afterburner IS the tank. Resistance or not a 900m/s flying Confessor with 1mn afterburner is a 100m lossmail. Right tools for the right purpose I say. 2 Sentinels or Dragoons and that Confessor will have a problem or two.
It's like saying a Brutix kills a Thorax - Brutix op.
Approaching a bigger boat in a nano ship might not be the right tactic for everything, go figure.
But back to the topic at hand, assault ships might need a little more speed, cap and maybe a range bonus like the Retribution has and all will be fine.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
341
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 22:32:54 -
[36] - Quote
People want ewar resistance, so why not give a +100% bonus to the effectiveness of anti-ewar modules.
- Tracking Computers,
- ECCM,
- SeBos,
- Batteries (ugh, I think).
That way, you can fit a hard counter to the type of ewar you're expecting, but keep an important fitting choice without favouring any faction too much.
An AB bonus would be cool, but I despise the speed meta too much for that. |
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra Gallente Federation
439
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 23:44:55 -
[37] - Quote
I'm still asserting the best brawling method for AFs is the cruiser class weapons, but in order to beat the whole "speed is king" thing, I'd like to make them just as weak to tackle as anything else, but not usurp tackles role and make them for hitting dessies/cruisers but not so effective at BS.
So, cruiser weapons, tracking bonus only, AF bonus to speed. Frig bonus: tracking bonus, or appropriate bonus for missiles, or smartbombs AF bonuses: AB speed bonus 10%/level, 20%/level reduced lock time after decloaking(regular cloaks). Role bonus: appropriate reductions to permit cruiser class weapons
That second AF bonus is to run gate camps but not have bubble immunity, have surprise Assfrig sex while camping gates, and to give solo roamers bathroom breaks.
It may require larger cargobays with a tradeoff in drone bay size and BW. Possibly a bit of speed if the AB bonus is raised even more.
As always the ishkur is a bit of an issue, but the trade off for that would be cargo size, bandwidth for 6 small drones(yes 6 in space at once) and be the only ship with bonuses to smartbombs.
a pipebombing frig, gimmie some love rooks and kings.
The cake is not a lie. Unfortunately, the fork is a parallel construction.
|
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
341
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 00:43:36 -
[38] - Quote
I'd love to see a HAM Hawk with the Rocket/LML bonuses transplanted directly with HAM/HML bonuses. My God, it'd be awesome fun fighting up-ship with that. |
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
185
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 04:35:06 -
[39] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote: 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.
MWD svipul is still better than a Jag/wolf and MWD confessor is still better than the retribution. Most Svipul fits I see are MWD + double MSE fit. Most Confessors I see MWD + beams. #1 doesn't solve anything in regards to the relationship between T3Ds and AFs.
#2 I don't think too many people are afraid of a 1mn AF "relentlessly" pursing them. The only real use that has is for dual prop fits attacking something with neuts, which currently is quite adequately addressed by fitting a nos.
#3 Sensor strength, capacitor buff, targeting range buffs and lock speed buffs I support because they actually enhance AF's role as heavy tacklers. Since long range neuts, ECM and damps the most common ways of peeling/preventing tackle. And really once you balance Svipuls and Confessors and fix some specific hulls like the Jaguar AFs should be fine. |
Valacus
Streets of Fire
75
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 07:00:49 -
[40] - Quote
There is no way to balance AFs without some extreme nerfs to T3Ds, and seriously some of them need it. The Svipul and Confessor overshadow just about every other ship of their class and below. You can field entire fleets of Svipuls and kill carriers. Svipuls can 1v1 cruisers. Any discussion of AFs has to include a T3D nerf. T3Ds are simply better at everything. If they could ignore bubbles, they'd also replace interceptors for traveling. In fact they already do in low sec. |
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
79
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 07:32:04 -
[41] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Tornii wrote:Excuse me but you just spent an entire effort of that post to point out something already referred to (now highlighted) in my previous comment, i.e. the fact that multiple neuts spread out and timed at various points mean frigate caps are constantly drained. Nothing personal but all you've done so far is waste your own time and mine reiterating theoretical frigate performance data to suggest it makes them viable against big ships while practical application of their counters proves that to be false. So then why were you suggesting that AFs should have a nuet resistance if you, as you now claim to understand, that neut amount negligible compared to the neut cycle time. Are you suggesting the AF should slow down the targets neut cycle time? No, and I was pretty clear about what I meant from the beginning. But okay, I'll do this one more time.
I suggested bonus to AFs for received neut/web effect because I said neuts on big ships ruined AF chances against them; when you pointed out large neuts had long cycle time and thus AFs could counter them for quick cap regen, I pointed out that large ship pilots have long known that and used combinations of small+medium or 2x medium neuts with varying activation times to keep AF caps dry. My suggestion would counter this by making the amount drained by neuts from AFs lower, thus allowing AFs to keep their caps alive (even in cases of neut combinations stated above) for staying alive while fighting bigger ships.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
354
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 13:58:45 -
[42] - Quote
Tornii wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Tornii wrote:Excuse me but you just spent an entire effort of that post to point out something already referred to (now highlighted) in my previous comment, i.e. the fact that multiple neuts spread out and timed at various points mean frigate caps are constantly drained. Nothing personal but all you've done so far is waste your own time and mine reiterating theoretical frigate performance data to suggest it makes them viable against big ships while practical application of their counters proves that to be false. So then why were you suggesting that AFs should have a nuet resistance if you, as you now claim to understand, that neut amount negligible compared to the neut cycle time. Are you suggesting the AF should slow down the targets neut cycle time? No, and I was pretty clear about what I meant from the beginning. But okay, I'll do this one more time. I suggested bonus to AFs for received neut/web effect because I said neuts on big ships ruined AF chances against them; when you pointed out large neuts had long cycle time and thus AFs could counter them for quick cap regen, I pointed out that large ship pilots have long known that and used combinations of small+medium or 2x medium neuts with varying activation times to keep AF caps dry. My suggestion would counter this by making the amount drained by neuts from AFs lower, thus allowing AFs to keep their caps alive (even in cases of neut combinations stated above) for staying alive while fighting bigger ships. So again for the nth time, that will have a neglible effect as it doesn't affect the nuet cycle time. Sorry your idea is terrible and you cant seem to admit it despite the obvious flaws. As others in this thread have also pointed out, neuts are not a major problem unless you are facing multiple neuts staggered (ie a curse), there are only a very small number of BS and BC that tend to fit enough neuts to bother an AF which is properly setup to counter them. I suggest before your next reply you go back to the drawing board and try to understand what is being said to you before repetedly suggesting the same bad idea over and over again.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
79
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 14:39:37 -
[43] - Quote
Now this is getting ridiculous.
Moac Tor wrote:As others in this thread have also pointed out, neuts are not a major problem Page 1: post 1, post 2 - both indicate the AF vulnerability to neuts I mentioned. Just because you saw a third post suggesting otherwise doesn't mean you should start making false statements in the hope that nobody will check their validity.
Moac Tor wrote:unless you are facing multiple neuts staggered Multiple=more than one. And 2x neuts staggered in activation is exactly what I have been mentioning for the last three or more replies now.
Moac Tor wrote:there are only a very small number of BS and BC that tend to fit enough neuts to bother an AF Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.
You don't like my idea - I have no issues with that. But please stop skipping/twisting my points or creating theories suiting your agenda.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
354
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 15:37:25 -
[44] - Quote
Tornii wrote:Now this is getting ridiculous. Moac Tor wrote:As others in this thread have also pointed out, neuts are not a major problem Page 1: post 1, post 2 - both indicate the AF vulnerability to neuts I mentioned. Just because you saw a third post suggesting otherwise doesn't mean you should start making false statements in the hope that nobody will check their validity. Moac Tor wrote:unless you are facing multiple neuts staggered Multiple=more than one. And 2x neuts staggered in activation is exactly what I have been mentioning for the last three or more replies now. Moac Tor wrote:there are only a very small number of BS and BC that tend to fit enough neuts to bother an AF Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely. Moac Tor wrote:BS and BC that tend to fit enough neuts to bother an AF which is properly setup to counter them. The only way to fit AFs to counter multiple neuts from a BC/BS is to have a cap booster, and maybe even NOS in addition (and even then multiple and timed neuts could nullify that fit). Fitting a ship already scarce on mod slots that way will sacrifice its tackling/tanking/damage potential and thus undermine its role as anti-big ship brawler, the role discussed within my suggestion. You don't like my idea - I have no issues with that. But please stop skipping/twisting my points or creating theories suiting your agenda. Interesting that you start the thread of asking for other peoples ideas, yet now it turns out that your real intention was to create a thread where you end up ignoring everyone else's constructive criticism and propagate a terrible idea which shows no knowledge of the mechanics. It is not just me saying that a neut/cap bonus is not necessary, you need to read your own thread.
Nevermind, your a lost cause. I'll let you continue to espouse your terrible idea in ignorance. It has 0% chance of being implemented anyway.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
694
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 17:33:40 -
[45] - Quote
Tornii wrote: Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.
Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers.
I suppose if you want to be derpy, Any BC could fit 2 neuts if they start dropping guns, but thats kind of silly to use that as a balancing point.
Same goes for battleships, geddon, fleet phoon, tempest and maybe 1-2 other BS' can fit dual heavy neuts, or 1 heavy neut/1 medium neut. Again, you can claim "2 neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without issue" if you start dropping guns.
We don't need a neut reduction gimmick. Neuts are there on purpose so bigger ships have some way to mitigate smaller ships. You already mentioned the best counter there is, a cap booster. We don't need gimmicky little AF with neut/web reduction bonuses. AF work decently now, they're just overshadowed by T3D which do the same thing for a similar price and completely dunk most AF's in comparable fights.
AF were good at holding down larger ships. The tank/sig of most of them is pretty significant when you're fighting against a non RHML BS or drone BC. Yes, BC/BS have fits designed to counter smaller ships. That is not a weakness of the ship class, its a counter. The last thing we need is yet another nerf to larger ship hulls. All they have going for them to counter small cancer ships are neuts, webs and drones. Excluding drone boats, most don't have extravagant drone bays either.
So now we want smaller, t2 resist profiled ships, with MWD sig reduction bonuses to have an immunity or reduction against webs/neuts? Fix cancer with more cancer, sounds like a good idea.
STOP TRYING TO IMPLEMENT GIMMICKS INTO SMALLER SHIP CLASSES THAT NEGATE LARGER SHIP COUNTERS.
FFS, there are more things in EVE than frigates and destroyers. Every suggestion to improve frigates seems to ignore the fact that you will be shitting all over larger ships even more, which don't need any more nerfs.
Rebalance AF stats, more solidly define their role as heavy tackle. Increase fitting, adjust traits, etc and MAYBE work on an AB bonus as that is the least derptarded thing mentioned so far.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
861
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 18:25:19 -
[46] - Quote
I'll see the derp suggest so far and raise you: AF pilots are invisible to local. |
Moac Tor
Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation
354
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 18:35:47 -
[47] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Tornii wrote: Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.
Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers. Exactly. It takes quite a lot of fitting compromises to get an effective cap warfare BC or BS, neuts take a tonne of powergrid and use up a utility high which a lot don't even have. Even then they can be countered by use of nos and cap boosters unless you have a bonused ship.
Stitch Kaneland wrote:We don't need a neut reduction gimmick. Neuts are there on purpose so bigger ships have some way to mitigate smaller ships. You already mentioned the best counter there is, a cap booster. We don't need gimmicky little AF with neut/web reduction bonuses. AF work decently now, they're just overshadowed by T3D which do the same thing for a similar price and completely dunk most AF's in comparable fights. Also even a small nos will give you enough cap to run frigate sized modules such as an afterburner, web, scram. Combine that with a cap booster and a decent AF pilot will have literally no problem with neuts. If anything neuts need a buff.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
79
|
Posted - 2015.12.15 20:40:26 -
[48] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Tornii wrote: Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.
Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers. I never said 2x medium neuts + full weapon rack. It's a tradeoff between max DPS and ability to counter tacklers, and the latter is chosen widely and frequently.
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Rebalance AF stats, more solidly define their role as heavy tackle. As I already mentioned, the tackle role is already overpopulated. We have ceptors as light tackle, recons as long range tackle and HICs as heavy tackle (plus the Keres long tackle option). AFs need their own specialised role, which is why I raised the idea of reduced neut/web effect. And if you think that's a gimmick, by that logic half of all EVE ships have gimmick bonuses.
Thank you for your contribution to this pool of ideas though.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Alexis Nightwish
363
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 00:15:54 -
[49] - Quote
I consider AFs to one of the most well-balanced ship classes in the game. It's the T3Ds and RLMLs that are the problem. If CCP were to fix those, you would see AFs flying around again.
Oh, and by 'fix' I mean 'nerf into the ******* ground' because it needs to be done.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
185
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 03:53:40 -
[50] - Quote
Tornii wrote:I never said 2x medium neuts + full weapon rack. It's a tradeoff between max DPS and ability to counter tacklers, and the latter is chosen widely and frequently. Really? Who are these people, corps, alliances dropping bonused gun/missile slots for neuts? Any semi-decent gang that's worried about tackle these days brings a RLML boat. Any decent soloer I know brings double webs or if they want to go dual neuts, picks a ship that actually has two utility high slots.
Tornii wrote:Rebalance AF stats, more solidly define their role as heavy tackle. As I already mentioned, the tackle role is already overpopulated. We have ceptors as light tackle, recons as long range tackle and HICs as heavy tackle (plus the Keres long tackle option). AFs need their own specialised role, which is why I raised the idea of reduced neut/web effect..[/quote] HICs go 1200-1600ms. Not exactly speedy. Svipuls currently perform heavy tackle because they can catch up to kiting Vagas, Cynabals, Nomens and fast BCs without being 2-3 shot like Ceptors. Prior to T3Ds this is was a role AFs filled somewhat adequately (they were never THAT great tbh). Heavy tackle is a legit role of AFs to fill and they certainly could be better at it. |
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
697
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 15:02:33 -
[51] - Quote
Tornii wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Tornii wrote: Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.
Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers. I never said 2x medium neuts + full weapon rack. It's a tradeoff between max DPS and ability to counter tacklers, and the latter is chosen widely and frequently. Stitch Kaneland wrote:Rebalance AF stats, more solidly define their role as heavy tackle. As I already mentioned, the tackle role is already overpopulated. We have ceptors as light tackle, recons as long range tackle and HICs as heavy tackle (plus the Keres long tackle option). AFs need their own specialised role, which is why I raised the idea of reduced neut/web effect. And if you think that's a gimmick, by that logic half of all EVE ships have gimmick bonuses. Thank you for your contribution to this pool of ideas though.
So wait, assuming this actually happens "frequently" (i doubt it, ive never ran across this scenario and ive solo'd for years), you want to introduce a gimmicky counter to ships that drop turrets/dps for neuts designed to counter frigates. They are sacrificing dps for better utility against frigates but are then vulnerable to larger ships. Your reasoning makes no sense.
Fitting ship A specifically to kill ship B, but in turn will be at a disadvantage to ship C is literally a non issue and is how the game balances itself. You are basically crying about a setup designed to kill frigs (while sacrificing elsewhere) and use that as a basis for allowing AF to have web/neut immunity/reduction. Which is just.. derpy as hell.
AF are easy to train into for most new players. HICs, recons are not. EAF are fairly easy to train as well but are by no means considered heavy tackle. You so much as sneeze on them and they will pop, not to mention they do very low dps. AF on the other hand are the definition of heavy tackle for 2 reasons:
1. MWD sig reduction bonus - Meaning its harder for larger guns to track, allowing you to get close and tackle
2. T2 resist profile - Yes t3ds have their tank mode, but they sacrifice range/speed to get comparable resistances. AF do not, its all in one package.
It is a gimmick and a gimmick that reduces effectivness of counters. To put in a different light, it would like saying giving the orthrus a bonus role for 90% reduction of effectiveness to sensor damps and missile disruptors because those counter it and its not fair.
AF need stat rebalances which include fitting resources and tweaking some of the weaker ships to balance out the group. You givethem the resources for fitting decent tanks without gobs of fitting mods and enough damage to be dangerous, you will see them come out again and be more evenly matched against t3ds.
To those who think t3d should dunk any frig are delusional. T1 destroyers by definition are anti-frig, yet can be killed fairly easily by a well skilled pilot and properly fit ship. I see no reason why t3ds should be an I win button. Again AF have tank/projection in one package. T3Ds do not. If AF had better tank and a bit more dps, that would solidify their role as heavy tackle and could even kill t3ds as long as they were a good pilot with a good fitting.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Valacus
Streets of Fire
77
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 16:53:59 -
[52] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Tornii wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Tornii wrote: Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.
Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers. I never said 2x medium neuts + full weapon rack. It's a tradeoff between max DPS and ability to counter tacklers, and the latter is chosen widely and frequently. Stitch Kaneland wrote:Rebalance AF stats, more solidly define their role as heavy tackle. As I already mentioned, the tackle role is already overpopulated. We have ceptors as light tackle, recons as long range tackle and HICs as heavy tackle (plus the Keres long tackle option). AFs need their own specialised role, which is why I raised the idea of reduced neut/web effect. And if you think that's a gimmick, by that logic half of all EVE ships have gimmick bonuses. Thank you for your contribution to this pool of ideas though. So wait, assuming this actually happens "frequently" (i doubt it, ive never ran across this scenario and ive solo'd for years), you want to introduce a gimmicky counter to ships that drop turrets/dps for neuts designed to counter frigates. They are sacrificing dps for better utility against frigates but are then vulnerable to larger ships. Your reasoning makes no sense. Fitting ship A specifically to kill ship B, but in turn will be at a disadvantage to ship C is literally a non issue and is how the game balances itself. You are basically crying about a setup designed to kill frigs (while sacrificing elsewhere) and use that as a basis for allowing AF to have web/neut immunity/reduction. Which is just.. derpy as hell. AF are easy to train into for most new players. HICs, recons are not. EAF are fairly easy to train as well but are by no means considered heavy tackle. You so much as sneeze on them and they will pop, not to mention they do very low dps. AF on the other hand are the definition of heavy tackle for 2 reasons: 1. MWD sig reduction bonus - Meaning its harder for larger guns to track, allowing you to get close and tackle 2. T2 resist profile - Yes t3ds have their tank mode, but they sacrifice range/speed to get comparable resistances. AF do not, its all in one package. It is a gimmick and a gimmick that reduces effectivness of counters. To put in a different light, it would like saying giving the orthrus a bonus role for 90% reduction of effectiveness to sensor damps and missile disruptors because those counter it and its not fair. AF need stat rebalances which include fitting resources and tweaking some of the weaker ships to balance out the group. You givethem the resources for fitting decent tanks without gobs of fitting mods and enough damage to be dangerous, you will see them come out again and be more evenly matched against t3ds. To those who think t3d should dunk any frig are delusional. T1 destroyers by definition are anti-frig, yet can be killed fairly easily by a well skilled pilot and properly fit ship. I see no reason why t3ds should be an I win button. Again AF have tank/projection in one package. T3Ds do not. If AF had better tank and a bit more dps, that would solidify their role as heavy tackle and could even kill t3ds as long as they were a good pilot with a good fitting.
AFs themselves don't need any changes. The only problem is T3Ds. Why should we remake the entire AF class just because CCP screwed the pooch with T3Ds? And T3Ds aren't just AFs problem, they're everyone's problem. All ship classes suffer because T3Ds are way out of whack, AFs just happen to suffer the most because T3Ds are just better AFs. They aren't even bigger sig wise, just faster, harder hitting, and packing more tank. Changing AFs is just beating it around the bush. We'd have to rework all ship classes cruiser and below to rebalance everything around T3Ds instead of tackling the real problem. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
697
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 17:05:17 -
[53] - Quote
Valacus wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Tornii wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:[quote=Tornii] Two neuts can be fitted to any BC/BS without any issue, and is done routinely.
Not true. Fleet cane and cyclone are the only 2 BC's that can fit 2 medium neuts+weapon compliment. The myrm/proph can fit 2 neuts as well if it sacrifices turrets/launchers. I never said 2x medium neuts + full weapon rack. It's a tradeoff between max DPS and ability to counter tacklers, and the latter is chosen widely and frequently. So wait, assuming this actually happens "frequently" (i doubt it, ive never ran across this scenario and ive solo'd for years), you want to introduce a gimmicky counter to ships that drop turrets/dps for neuts designed to counter frigates. They are sacrificing dps for better utility against frigates but are then vulnerable to larger ships. Your reasoning makes no sense. Fitting ship A specifically to kill ship B, but in turn will be at a disadvantage to ship C is literally a non issue and is how the game balances itself. You are basically crying about a setup designed to kill frigs (while sacrificing elsewhere) and use that as a basis for allowing AF to have web/neut immunity/reduction. Which is just.. derpy as hell. AF are easy to train into for most new players. HICs, recons are not. EAF are fairly easy to train as well but are by no means considered heavy tackle. You so much as sneeze on them and they will pop, not to mention they do very low dps. AF on the other hand are the definition of heavy tackle for 2 reasons: 1. MWD sig reduction bonus - Meaning its harder for larger guns to track, allowing you to get close and tackle 2. T2 resist profile - Yes t3ds have their tank mode, but they sacrifice range/speed to get comparable resistances. AF do not, its all in one package. It is a gimmick and a gimmick that reduces effectivness of counters. To put in a different light, it would like saying giving the orthrus a bonus role for 90% reduction of effectiveness to sensor damps and missile disruptors because those counter it and its not fair. AF need stat rebalances which include fitting resources and tweaking some of the weaker ships to balance out the group. You givethem the resources for fitting decent tanks without gobs of fitting mods and enough damage to be dangerous, you will see them come out again and be more evenly matched against t3ds. To those who think t3d should dunk any frig are delusional. T1 destroyers by definition are anti-frig, yet can be killed fairly easily by a well skilled pilot and properly fit ship. I see no reason why t3ds should be an I win button. Again AF have tank/projection in one package. T3Ds do not. If AF had better tank and a bit more dps, that would solidify their role as heavy tackle and could even kill t3ds as long as they were a good pilot with a good fitting. AFs themselves don't need any changes. The only problem is T3Ds. Why should we remake the entire AF class just because CCP screwed the pooch with T3Ds? And T3Ds aren't just AFs problem, they're everyone's problem. All ship classes suffer because T3Ds are way out of whack, AFs just happen to suffer the most because T3Ds are just better AFs. They aren't even bigger sig wise, just faster, harder hitting, and packing more tank. Changing AFs is just beating it around the bush. We'd have to rework all ship classes cruiser and below to rebalance everything around T3Ds instead of tackling the real problem.
There are certain AF that need help even before t3d (jag/wolf/retribution/ishkur). These arent radical rebalances mind you, more like optimization. Things like the ishkur drone bonus trait. Just give it enough bandwidth from the getgo and change its bandwidth trait to something like armor rep. Same for jag/wolf, consolidate the dual damage bonuses into one damage bonus and add a different trait.
All AF need a cap rebalance. They have terrible cap and some can barely run an MWD and t1 point longer than 1 minute. Giving them more fitting/cap and rebalancing some traits is all fairly minor and requires no gimmicks to get the same effect.
T3Ds are being nerfed, so we will see how it settles once the focus groups are done.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
820
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 17:08:36 -
[54] - Quote
Tom Gerard wrote: 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.
I wouldn't give them full immunity to any ewar but giving them ewar resistance is a very good role, a flat 50% resistance to everything except points/scrams would make them very useful but not too OP. I would include neuts in that.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Valacus
Streets of Fire
77
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 17:09:44 -
[55] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:There are certain AF that need help even before t3d (jag/wolf/retribution/ishkur). These arent radical rebalances mind you, more like optimization. Things like the ishkur drone bonus trait. Just give it enough bandwidth from the getgo and change its bandwidth trait to something like armor rep. Same for jag/wolf, consolidate the dual damage bonuses into one damage bonus and add a different trait.
All AF need a cap rebalance. They have terrible cap and some can barely run an MWD and t1 point longer than 1 minute. Giving them more fitting/cap and rebalancing some traits is all fairly minor and requires no gimmicks to get the same effect.
T3Ds are being nerfed, so we will see how it settles once the focus groups are done.
I also think it goes without saying that AFs should be faster than T3Ds, meaning either AFs need to get faster or T3Ds need to get much, much slower. If anything, T3Ds should be equal in speed to AFs while in speed mode, or maybe slightly faster. As it is now, T3Ds run circles around them. Hell, the Svipul even runs circles around my Crow, and I have prop rigs. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
697
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 17:17:32 -
[56] - Quote
Valacus wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:There are certain AF that need help even before t3d (jag/wolf/retribution/ishkur). These arent radical rebalances mind you, more like optimization. Things like the ishkur drone bonus trait. Just give it enough bandwidth from the getgo and change its bandwidth trait to something like armor rep. Same for jag/wolf, consolidate the dual damage bonuses into one damage bonus and add a different trait.
All AF need a cap rebalance. They have terrible cap and some can barely run an MWD and t1 point longer than 1 minute. Giving them more fitting/cap and rebalancing some traits is all fairly minor and requires no gimmicks to get the same effect.
T3Ds are being nerfed, so we will see how it settles once the focus groups are done. I also think it goes without saying that AFs should be faster than T3Ds, meaning either AFs need to get faster or T3Ds need to get much, much slower. If anything, T3Ds should be equal in speed to AFs while in speed mode, or maybe slightly faster. As it is now, T3Ds run circles around them. Hell, the Svipul even runs circles around my Crow, and I have prop rigs.
Agreed. I remember using an arty svipul pre-nerf and could go 5k OH and like 3.8k cold. I was outrunning inties while at the same time doing more dps than an AF using short range ammo, when I was using long range ammo.
I stopped flying t3ds because they feel cheap and OP.
That being said, speed/sig are hopefully getting looked at, especially in the svipuls case. So maybe this wont be as bad of an issue in the upcoming changes.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
13098
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 19:04:16 -
[57] - Quote
as the other thread was rightly closed ill inject the essentials here.
the op's suggestion was an infinipoint for assault frigs we immediately ignored this and started speculating what slightly less mad things might be good for them.
Ralph King-Griffin wrote: afterburner bonus ? i know its something id love to see on them.
elitatwo wrote: Me too but I think my Succubus would become very sad. Anyhow didn't they try that on SiSi once and say it was too strong already?
The one thing assault ships are good for is burner missions.
Ralph King-Griffin wrote: pretty sure that was before the t3's were a thing though.
Goldensaver wrote: It was before anything else at all got tiericided.
Ralph King-Griffin wrote: may be worth revisiting then eh.
ill be clear here though, im actually fairly happy with assault frigates right now, yeah t3d's will go through them for a shortcut but im not all that offended by this, before they were thing i would have happily jumped on any of the destroyer class in my ishkur because they just weren't that scary , you have the resistances to tank them and if you caught them off balance you could kill them before they actually did all that much dps to you.
im not saying they aren't broken as f*** , they are and i know it , but the food chain seems a little more appropriate now , even if its gone too far in the desie classes favour.
Iain Cariaba wrote: I don't know what CCP was thinking when they introduced d3s. Why ever would they implement some hulls, of the size group that's supposedly purpose built to be frigate killers, that are actually good at killing frigates?
The concept boggles the mind. Shocked
#16 - 2015-12-16 14:23:13 UTC | Iain Cariaba wrote: ...-said there were too many quotes-... I don't know what CCP was thinking when they introduced d3s. Why ever would they implement some hulls, of the size group that's supposedly purpose built to be frigate killers, that are actually good at killing frigates?
The concept boggles the mind. Shocked
elitatwo wrote: Didn't CCP Fozzie say in one of the o7 shows that CCP is planning on shaking up things without predicting the outcome just for the sake of shaking? You take the words right out of my mind, destroyer kills frigate, destoyer op - LOL.
I think people give some values on the fitting screen too much credit. Assault ships have t2 resists, sure, but those resistances only postpone the inevitable or slow them down.
A frigate is still a frigate.
And frigates had a good run. Now they have more predators. Anyone remember tier 3 battlecruisers? I hear tornadoes kill destroyers with one shot. If only they would cost a tad less.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Elyia Suze Nagala
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
43
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 19:11:20 -
[58] - Quote
Assault Frigates were ment to one thing, DPS.
Role Bonus: 25% Additional damage to (Insert Racial Weapon)
There fixed.
Everyone stop griping. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1251
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 19:16:27 -
[59] - Quote
D3's heavily nerfed and RLML's converted into a light assault missile/launcher combo might bring AF's into a more useful place, perhaps with the assault line gaining some e-war resistances they are adding too capitals.
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
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
697
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 19:56:56 -
[60] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:D3's heavily nerfed and RLML's converted into a light assault missile/launcher combo might bring AF's into a more useful place, perhaps with the assault line gaining some e-war resistances they are adding too capitals.
Id say its more of a T3D problem than RLML problem tbh. RLML might be counterable through sig reduction and a bigger tank combined with missile EWAR.
That being said, just because supers/capital ships are getting EWAR resistance does not mean other ships should. Supers used to be EWAR immune short of bubbles and infinite point HICs. Now they are not, but are allowed resistance to it. This is specific to capitals and supers, not something that should be thrown around to other ship classes "just because".
By assault line do you mean HACs as well too? Since those are heavy assault cruisers. Do we really wanna go down this road where vagabonds are resistant to webs, cerbs are resistant to damps and the deimos resistant against neuts? The few ways these ships are counterable would be reduced which is not needed in the HAC line, nor is it needed in the AF line.
I speak about this because i still fly AF on occasion. They can still put the hurt on most other frigs and dessies and some cruisers without much issue. Giving them EWAR immunity/resistance will make them just as one sided as t3ds are against AF.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1252
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 20:40:31 -
[61] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Harvey James wrote:D3's heavily nerfed and RLML's converted into a light assault missile/launcher combo might bring AF's into a more useful place, perhaps with the assault line gaining some e-war resistances they are adding too capitals. Id say its more of a T3D problem than RLML problem tbh. RLML might be counterable through sig reduction and a bigger tank combined with missile EWAR. That being said, just because supers/capital ships are getting EWAR resistance does not mean other ships should. Supers used to be EWAR immune short of bubbles and infinite point HICs. Now they are not, but are allowed resistance to it. This is specific to capitals and supers, not something that should be thrown around to other ship classes "just because". By assault line do you mean HACs as well too? Since those are heavy assault cruisers. Do we really wanna go down this road where vagabonds are resistant to webs, cerbs are resistant to damps and the deimos resistant against neuts? The few ways these ships are counterable would be reduced which is not needed in the HAC line, nor is it needed in the AF line. I speak about this because i still fly AF on occasion. They can still put the hurt on most other frigs and dessies and some cruisers without much issue. Giving them EWAR immunity/resistance will make them just as one sided as t3ds are against AF.
you play devils advocate well, so lets polish the idea a little, how about adding resistance to TP's this synergises with the mwd sig bonus, perhaps other e-war bonuses could be geared more to each ship/race possibly with some base stats being reduced too compensate
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
|
Valacus
Streets of Fire
79
|
Posted - 2015.12.16 21:17:09 -
[62] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Harvey James wrote:D3's heavily nerfed and RLML's converted into a light assault missile/launcher combo might bring AF's into a more useful place, perhaps with the assault line gaining some e-war resistances they are adding too capitals. Id say its more of a T3D problem than RLML problem tbh. RLML might be counterable through sig reduction and a bigger tank combined with missile EWAR. That being said, just because supers/capital ships are getting EWAR resistance does not mean other ships should. Supers used to be EWAR immune short of bubbles and infinite point HICs. Now they are not, but are allowed resistance to it. This is specific to capitals and supers, not something that should be thrown around to other ship classes "just because". By assault line do you mean HACs as well too? Since those are heavy assault cruisers. Do we really wanna go down this road where vagabonds are resistant to webs, cerbs are resistant to damps and the deimos resistant against neuts? The few ways these ships are counterable would be reduced which is not needed in the HAC line, nor is it needed in the AF line. I speak about this because i still fly AF on occasion. They can still put the hurt on most other frigs and dessies and some cruisers without much issue. Giving them EWAR immunity/resistance will make them just as one sided as t3ds are against AF. you play devils advocate well, so lets polish the idea a little, how about adding resistance to TP's this synergises with the mwd sig bonus, perhaps other e-war bonuses could be geared more to each ship/race possibly with some base stats being reduced too compensate
Why does the AF class need any ewar resistance at all? Ewar resistance should be left to supercaps only and that's where it should stay. If AFs need anything it's speed and fitting power. AFs don't need a new niche, just adjustments to the niche they're in. The niche itself, not so much AFs. |
Derren Zelway
Crazy Bird Inc. Templis CALSF
6
|
Posted - 2015.12.17 10:11:35 -
[63] - Quote
I say they need a buff to their speed and maneuverability to make them feel a bit closer to T1 Frigates. This will help them catch more targets and define them as a tackling frigate that can take enough of a beating for reinforcements to arrive.
I justify this because AF's are relatively difficult to fit for kiting and, at the very least, sacrifice a great deal to do so.
Of course, this might mean they might need to have their MWD signature bloom role bonus turned down to compensate for an increase in their "speed/signature tank" while approaching a target.
As a side note the Retribution and Wolf could probably use some minor fitting increases because it's really a pain to get a fit that's solid.
This, alongside a few minor tweaks to T3D's (probably a slight speed, tank, and mode switching nerf), will put them in a good spot. |
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
534
|
Posted - 2015.12.17 11:57:09 -
[64] - Quote
Polarized weapons heat bonus.
The Law is a point of View
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1681
|
Posted - 2015.12.17 13:04:00 -
[65] - Quote
Derren Zelway wrote:I say they need a buff to their speed and maneuverability to make them feel a bit closer to T1 Frigates. This will help them catch more targets and define them as a tackling frigate that can take enough of a beating for reinforcements to arrive.
I justify this because AF's are relatively difficult to fit for kiting and, at the very least, sacrifice a great deal to do so.
Of course, this might mean they might need to have their MWD signature bloom role bonus turned down to compensate for an increase in their "speed/signature tank" while approaching a target.
As a side note the Retribution and Wolf could probably use some minor fitting increases because it's really a pain to get a fit that's solid.
This, alongside a few minor tweaks to T3D's (probably a slight speed, tank, and mode switching nerf), will put them in a good spot.
Interceptors are kiting frigates.
Assault frigates are not kiting frigates.
There are too many ninnies on here trying to make AF into tanky interceptors. CCP already took away their role by giving a mwd bonus instead of AB bonus. The ROLE of the AF his brawling / heavy frigate tackle. Just stop w/ the kiting crap. There are already enough kiting options out there. (pro hint - every other frigate in the game)
TL/DR: Can we please have one frigate class that isn't designed from the ground up to kite and run away from a fight? |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
698
|
Posted - 2015.12.17 19:33:12 -
[66] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Polarized weapons heat bonus.
AF can fit polarized weapons without penalty, or penalty is reduced. Could be interesting, but i still have trouble coming up with a reason why AF should be a special case for this.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Derren Zelway
Crazy Bird Inc. Templis CALSF
6
|
Posted - 2015.12.17 20:15:12 -
[67] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Derren Zelway wrote:I say they need a buff to their speed and maneuverability to make them feel a bit closer to T1 Frigates. This will help them catch more targets and define them as a tackling frigate that can take enough of a beating for reinforcements to arrive.
I justify this because AF's are relatively difficult to fit for kiting and, at the very least, sacrifice a great deal to do so.
Of course, this might mean they might need to have their MWD signature bloom role bonus turned down to compensate for an increase in their "speed/signature tank" while approaching a target.
As a side note the Retribution and Wolf could probably use some minor fitting increases because it's really a pain to get a fit that's solid.
This, alongside a few minor tweaks to T3D's (probably a slight speed, tank, and mode switching nerf), will put them in a good spot. Interceptors are kiting frigates. Assault frigates are not kiting frigates. There are too many ninnies on here trying to make AF into tanky interceptors. CCP already took away their role by giving a mwd bonus instead of AB bonus. The ROLE of the AF his brawling / heavy frigate tackle. Just stop w/ the kiting crap. There are already enough kiting options out there. (pro hint - every other frigate in the game) TL/DR: Can we please have one frigate class that isn't designed from the ground up to kite and run away from a fight?
I think you may have misread or misinterpreted what I was saying. AF's need speed so they can TACKLE targets. Tackle being a scram/web combination. AF's in no way should be re-purposed to kite like most interceptors do.
|
Cara Forelli
Meticulously Indifferent
1383
|
Posted - 2015.12.17 20:20:06 -
[68] - Quote
At first I liked the afterburner / web resistance bonus because it would be helpful in the heavy tackle role. Then I remembered that would make AF absolutely dump on t1 frigates, since their only advantage currently is their superior agility.
I'd prefer to see bonuses which buff their viability in the heavy tackle role without increasing their offensive power against other small ships. Stuff like...
1) Sig radius reduction (I mean come on...the confessor has the same sig in defense mode as an AF). 2) Cap booster cycle/reload time bonus 3) Nos cycle time bonus
As for T3Ds; they are the premiere destroyer - they should dump on AFs. It is their viability against cruisers which I call into question. Let AF fill that heavy tackle role and move T3D back toward anti-support (larger sig radii maybe?).
Adventures
New player with questions? Join my public channel in game: House Forelli
Titan's Lament
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2046
|
Posted - 2015.12.17 20:49:06 -
[69] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Polarized weapons heat bonus.
One of the defining characteristics of Assault Frigates is full T2 resists. How does a polarized weapon overheating bonus make sense in that regard?
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
544
|
Posted - 2015.12.17 22:13:09 -
[70] - Quote
with t3d's being removed from the smalls. af's are back in their proper place as prefered ships. not dead ship class at all. maybe in 0.0 they are dead. but who plays there anyways.
Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
|
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
83
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 06:24:49 -
[71] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote:maybe in 0.0 they are dead. but who plays there anyways. Even if nullsec was empty (which it isn't, and I could invite you to Querious to bear witness to that) that would still be a very poor argument against fixing a ship class for all usages.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Otso Bakarti
Filial Pariahs
553
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 07:59:25 -
[72] - Quote
You make a T3 variant, you make the other classes obsolete. It's a waste of bandwidth to have them in the game at all, but for part of the learning curve to abandon them eventually for the T3 variant.
This entire foray was begun because devs interpreted player hunger for new and better "things". If players would settle on "newer and better" being how THEY use what they have on hand to make manifest their ever improving SKILLS, devs wouldn't feel soul bound to keep the players happy with a constant stream of new stuff.
What all these arguments say, pro and con, is having far too many classes of ships to do very few things is the source of any and all imbalance. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.
There just isn't anything that can be said!
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
83
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 08:45:19 -
[73] - Quote
Otso Bakarti wrote:having far too many classes of ships to do very few things is the source of any and all imbalance. Well said. Even if TDs get nerfed in terms of sig radius /speed /etc they're still fundamentally in the similar role as AFs, and that is the issue in my opinion. It's similar to how nobody (maybe apart from FW players who find themselves in artificially limited terms of ship classes they can choose) even remembers the existence of T1 destroyers now as three other destroyer classes are there for the choosing. And they're so simple and quick to train for the T1 versions can't even claim a 'training and preparation' role for themselves. It's understandable CCP feel they need to keep bringing new ships to draw players in with juicy announcements but that also makes other ships obsolete unless you make them distinctive via specific, unique, niche roles.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
962
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 13:47:51 -
[74] - Quote
Tornii wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:you want to introduce a gimmicky counter to ships that drop turrets/dps for neuts designed to counter frigates. Because there are many more frigates than assault frigs, and while keeping larger ships effective against all other frigate classes this would create a niche role for assault frigs specifically, which was the idea in my proposal for improving their usage...
Aaah!! So here lays the culprit, you are trying to solve a people problem, not a ship or mechanics problem.
For the record, the following is an observation I made over a decade long of observing things and following the forums to see what people like to fly.
You seem to percieve less assault ships in the space you are flying in than you are used to see. Now let me quote a saying that you might have heard not in EVE but here it goes, "out of sight, out of mind".
You follow the forums, so do others and since Cruicible and the giant task of rebalancing all ships in New Eden to appropiate power levels or making them unique with special powers that be you are always prone to see more of those in space.
If you were following this section here, there was a constant stream of ships being looked under the microscope and tons of player feedback and back and forth tweaking to make most of us happy with what we get.
The giant task of tiericide was a success in all departments and there are no bad tech one ships anymore, they are just different.
All of this started with a change to assault ships prior to Crubible and since then they haven't seen much love but it doesn't mean they are bad, they are just "out of sight" for a while now and I have noticed a long time ago that people like to forget things very quickly when you don't remind them all day, every day over and over again.
I am with Stich here because I do think they don't need very much, just some capacitor tweaks and some powergrid adjustments here and there and they are fixed.
What you are trying to is making hover-craft vehicles strong against hum-wees. Everyone else that attempt to strike down an armored jeep with a hover-craft may want to rethink what tools to use for the task.
I do see the kids crying oceans when they try to bash their hazelnut-brains against a mountain and it doesn't work no matter how often they are trying and call for nerfs because reasonsGäó and stuffGäó.
Maybe you should not only read the headlines of the rebalancing threads once more but what we were saying in them, since they give out tactical advice on how and where to use them, how to fly and fit them - just igonore the white noise between the good parts.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
701
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 17:04:37 -
[75] - Quote
Tornii wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:you want to introduce a gimmicky counter to ships that drop turrets/dps for neuts designed to counter frigates. Because there are many more frigates than assault frigs, and while keeping larger ships effective against all other frigate classes this would create a niche role for assault frigs specifically, which was the idea in my proposal for improving their usage...
Thats just it though. Larger ship classes are not good against frigates unless they design the fit to be anti-frig. This means they are at a disadvantage to other large ships. You are asking for a counter to ships specifically designed to kill frigs but are already at a disadvantage to other big ships.
Assault frigs are heavy tackle, that is their niche. They dont need ewar gimmicks to the only counter large ships have against smaller ships. Especially ships that sacrifice their fitting to specifically kill frigs.
There are fewer AF than standard frigs because t3d are doing thr AF role better. Once t3ds are nerfed with hopefully larger sigs and slower speeds, then AF have a niche to fill again. From there its just tweaking of stats and AF will be in a good spot.
Like ive mentioned earlier, why do AF get special treatment? They are assault frigs. Its a slippery slope to applying the same mentality to HACs which are also categorized as "assault" ships. Like i said to reaver, do you really want to see neut resistant deimos or web resistant vagabonds?
Once t3ds are properly nerfed, then AF wont be obsolete. From there they get tweaked.
For all AF Increase base cap/recharge A minor EHP buff
Jaguar - Roll double damage bonus into 1 trait, this frees a slot for maybe a shield boost bonus or velocity/sig/shield HP bonus. Or, redesign jag to be the t2 breacher.
Wolf - Roll double damage bonus into 1 trait. Give a 2nd falloff bonus. Drop utility high for 3rd mid perhaps. Give more CPU.
Enyo - its already a solid ship, mainly EHP/cap buffs and maybe some minor fitting tweaks
Ishkur - remove drone bandwidth trait, just give it 5 drones. Add armor rep amount trait (heavy tackle)
Harpy - Again another fairly solid ship, cap/EHP buffs and fitting tweaks
Hawk - remove shield boost bonus (idk why it got a minmatar bonus and minny got no tank bonuses), replace with shield HP bonus or explosion radius bonus. Increase shield HP to compensate, remove utility high and put into a low. Increase fitting and increase speed a bit.
Vengeance - EHP buff, otherwise i think its a solid ship, arguably the best cap out of all the AF.
Retribution - mainly fitting/EHP/cap buffs with minor speed increase. Maybe have tracking bonus go from 7.5% to 10% per level.
Once t3ds are nerfed, changes similar to these are all thats needed to bring AF back into a good position. Yes, some of my recommendations could push some ships into being strong brawlers or even a kiter, bit they are heavy tackle and need to live up to it. These changes with solidify that role. They could be strong, but not OP like EWAR resistant frigs, and not be just another nerf to bigger ships.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
|
Tornii
Infinite Point Northern Army
83
|
Posted - 2015.12.18 17:23:36 -
[76] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:You seem to percieve less assault ships in the space you are flying in than you are used to see. Now let me quote a saying that you might have heard not in EVE but here it goes, "out of sight, out of mind". While I agree on the general phenomenon of perception you described, you can come to nullsec any time and count how many AFs you encounter on the way. And I'm not even talking about chances of AFs to get into roaming/ops fleet compositions of corps and alliances.
Socialism must eradicate capitalism before capitalism eradicates civilisation
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1696
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 12:20:53 -
[77] - Quote
Tornii wrote:elitatwo wrote:You seem to percieve less assault ships in the space you are flying in than you are used to see. Now let me quote a saying that you might have heard not in EVE but here it goes, "out of sight, out of mind". While I agree on the general phenomenon of perception you described, you can come to nullsec any time and count how many AFs you encounter on the way. And I'm not even talking about chances of AFs becoming part of roaming/ops fleet compositions of corps and alliances.
Our wh chain opened up into syndicate yesterday. We started rolling out in command ships and hacs to educate some ratters on the finer points of being careful. 2 jumps in we had to fall back and look elsewhere. There was an inty/AF gang harassing a t3d fleet. They were both moving fast and having a great time (which I think is the point of both eve and syndicate). Anyway there were a lot of assault frigates mixed into both of the fleets. They were ripping around having fun.
t3d are in the process of being adjusted and AF are in a good spot (a great spot once t3d finish their callibration pass). Just keep in mind what they are and what they are not. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
17071
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 12:25:53 -
[78] - Quote
Best way to help AF is to nerf T3D Down to the level of destroyers.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
971
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 13:21:30 -
[79] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Best way to help AF is to nerf T3D Down to the level of destroyers.
Yeah, let's. Come to think of it, since the Corax is the most powerful destroyer bar none we should nerf down everything to her powerlevel.
It will only take one day after that release we will see a lot of shiptoasting done. Lowsec - they only place there is in New Eden will be farmvill- errm fixed.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1703
|
Posted - 2015.12.21 19:02:10 -
[80] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Best way to help AF is to nerf T3D Down to the level of destroyers.
The t3 hate is consuming this guy. He's right, but so much hate.
Show me on the megathron where the t3d touched you!
I have faith in the t3d balance group. Mostly faith in Suitonia. He's been rocking frigates pretty much since the beginning. He has a good handle on stuff and he's like twice as smart as the other guys in the group. His workout videos are totally awesome. His cookbook is on the #1 best seller list. He'll bring home the balance on t3d. |
|
Megan Maynard
Mecha Enterprises Fleet Spaceship Bebop
0
|
Posted - 2015.12.23 12:28:27 -
[81] - Quote
It is an assault frigate. This problem is solved by making them fit that name.
All Dessies do anywhere from 200-600 dps. (T1 thru T3)
ASSAULT frigates should do the same.
Dessies have more hp. AF are faster. That part is already balanced. |
Romana Erebus
Rifterlings Zero.Four Ops
50
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 01:18:10 -
[82] - Quote
They dont look dead to me.... http://puu.sh/m6DlI/324b959ca4.jpg |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
720
|
Posted - 2015.12.24 14:49:45 -
[83] - Quote
Not having followed the thread I want to ask has the changes to FW sites made a big difference to AF use?
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |