EVE Search - Assault Frigates need a new role determinating role bonus!!!

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Assault Frigates need a new role determinating role bonus!!!

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Rain6637 NulzSec 34307	Posted - 2016.10.25 05:27:37 - [31] - Quote Everyone keeps saying T3D but I think what you mean is "Svipul" lol Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Nikea Tiber Backwater Enterprises RD 37	Posted - 2016.10.25 06:46:14 - [32] - Quote Re: t3ds invalidating other ship classes. A non shitfit tech 1 dessie will scrap an AF; thrasher and coercer in particular, so this was a "problem" even before tactical destroyers. Not as much a problem as evidence the "food chain" in eve works, though. Destroyers wreck frigates; that is their role. Assuming equal pilot skill and fitting level, a destoyer has got a snowballs chance in hell vs medium and even some large short range turrets by merit of a destoyers poor mobility to sig radius ratio (i.e. cruisers, BCs, and short range BS' all have little trouble vaporizing destroyers within disruption range). So yeah, tactical destroyers are too strong in terms of use of propulsion mode or defensive mode to improve the sig:mobility ratio to survive or escape encounters that should have scrapped any destroyer. This is an entirely different topic, though. In terms of making AFs strong enough or nerfing tactical destroyers hard enough that an AF can reliably solo a tactical destroyer it is never going to happen. It shouldn't. EWAR resistance is probably the best baked in role for AFs; considering that with all types, tracking isnt involved so avoiding it through speed isnt possible. In cases of ewar like cap neutralization, the problem is accentuated because if you are in range of a large neut and locked your cap is gone as soon as they trigger the neut even if you are at velocities that keep you safe from turrets and miasiles. Since they are frigates, they don't have particularly impressive sensor strength or locking range, so again are easily jammed, or damped to where they are forced to operate within web and scram ranges. Recieving actual frigate mobility as well as keeping an extra turret or launcher (vs the t1 base hull) + an application bonus would ensure that it doesn't hit too hard above its weight class, but is extremely useful in removing hostile hostile ewar and providing fast tackle in most other circumstances. Fittings could also use adjustment; they should be able to fit the most power and cpu hungry high slot modules expected for the hull as well as fit standard tank, damage, and tackle mods with a maxed advanced fitting skills character without having to make really tough decisions. Isn't the assault frigate the pinnacle of a combat frigate? There should be fitting space to match without severe limitations. my other nano is a polycarb
Elmund Egivand Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 1704	Posted - 2016.10.25 08:31:30 - [33] - Quote I think that, indeed, the assault frigate is too slow for their anti-tackle anti-frigate beefcake tanky murderboat. It's ridiculous. The HACs are either equal, slightly slower or slightly faster (or alot faster in some cases) than their T1 counterparts. So why is it that the AFs, which are supposed to be the frigate equivalent of these cruiser-sized murderboats, SLOWER? Is there even a reason to be fitting an AF other than a Destroyer for murdering frigs? Beyond inviting dudes to come and have a go at you because they think AFs are shite, that is. A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
Gregorius Goldstein Ze One Man Show 806	Posted - 2016.10.25 09:08:15 - [34] - Quote When I made lists with ships to train I was surprised by the long training time for Assault Frigs. Perhaps if T3 Dessis took longer to train and Assault Frigs were a short train they could be viable ships for newbies like me? Perhaps make them cheap to build too? And/or make them trainable for Alpha accounts? Or just give Assault frigs above avarege slots and flexible bonuses, a bit like the Gnosis. That would make them a wildcard and you woul never know what they have fitted until you engage them?
Rain6637 NulzSec 34309	Posted - 2016.10.25 09:52:54 - [35] - Quote welll signature radius is kind of important, and in terms of DPS per meter of signature radius I'm pretty sure assault frigates are the highest. I guess I agree with the mobility buffs such as a bonus against web effects so the assault frigate can take advantage of its signature radius. I like the web reduction the most because that's the range where two ships equalize each other. At that point what matters is who brought more ship. If not a web effect reduction I could agree with a 50% web range bonus so assault frigates can have a good chance to kite, but more importantly take advantage of their signature radius. With skills, assault frigates have the sig of a light drone. 200 dps in a scout drone would be kind of awesome. I'll take 5 please Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Rain6637 NulzSec 34310	Posted - 2016.10.25 10:34:19 - [36] - Quote Wait. Web range bonus would be dumb because then they'd have to kite outside their own gun range. lol Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Pandora Carrollon Dawn of a New Horizon The Republic. 675	Posted - 2016.10.25 22:28:01 - [37] - Quote To me an AF should be the ultimate hit and run raider. Very fast, can hit hard (high alpha) but low loiter time. So I agree with the -10% sig radius, maybe even -20%. Also increase base speed by at least 10% or give AB +20% speed boost. Pinpoint active targeting modules only useable on AF's making them ECM proof, but they need to take up a Medium Slot. Essentially the ultimate target painter. Also makes them awesome single target blasters. Allow them to use Medium size weapons by giving them the energy reductions like the BC gun platforms get when using large guns. Reduce native tanking by 10% making them more vulnerable than their normal frigate cousins. This would essentially make them T3 Assault Frigates but they would be nasty customers. 8 Golden Rules of EVE GÇó EVE is entirely PvP
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 113	Posted - 2016.10.26 00:15:21 - [38] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: To me an AF should be the ultimate hit and run raider. Very fast, can hit hard (high alpha) but low loiter time. So I agree with the -10% sig radius, maybe even -20%. Also increase base speed by at least 10% or give AB +20% speed boost. Pinpoint active targeting modules only useable on AF's making them ECM proof, but they need to take up a Medium Slot. Essentially the ultimate target painter. Also makes them awesome single target blasters. Allow them to use Medium size weapons by giving them the energy reductions like the BC gun platforms get when using large guns. Reduce native tanking by 10% making them more vulnerable than their normal frigate cousins. This would essentially make them T3 Assault Frigates but they would be nasty customers. I could see this, but keep the small weapons and give them more cpu and power grid. AFs are a NIGHTMARE to tech 2 fit even with max skills. They might just be the hardest sub cap to fit due to CPU and PG.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 203	Posted - 2016.10.26 04:14:01 - [39] - Quote Tiberius NoVegas wrote: This does need to be moved. how ever my 2 cent is the T3 destroyers are too easy to get into. You can get into a T3D faster then you can train up for T2D or even T2C. its not that T3D are too easy to get into. Say you prolonged the time to get into it something ridiculous like 10 years. 10 years later, T3D are what you should be in and not an AF. The problem is T3, not AF. Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 203	Posted - 2016.10.26 04:14:56 - [40] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: To me an AF should be the ultimate hit and run raider. Very fast, can hit hard (high alpha) but low loiter time. So I agree with the -10% sig radius, maybe even -20%. Also increase base speed by at least 10% or give AB +20% speed boost. Pinpoint active targeting modules only useable on AF's making them ECM proof, but they need to take up a Medium Slot. Essentially the ultimate target painter. Also makes them awesome single target blasters. Allow them to use Medium size weapons by giving them the energy reductions like the BC gun platforms get when using large guns. Reduce native tanking by 10% making them more vulnerable than their normal frigate cousins. This would essentially make them T3 Assault Frigates but they would be nasty customers. Oh, you mean like interceptors? Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 203	Posted - 2016.10.26 04:19:03 - [41] - Quote Memphis Baas wrote: Khan Wrenth wrote: New role: heavy tackle. Immunity to warp scramble MWD shutoff Immunity to stais webifiers How exactly is that an assault role? How exactly would it be viable, when the AF is still a frigate, and you're leaving it vulnerable to neuts? You want heavy tackle, use a cruiser, that's the "heavy tackle" meta. AF's are frigates, and because they are frigates they don't tank with an armor or shield tank, not really, so those resist bonuses are somewhat crap. They help, but they don't have the same effect that a HAC's resists have compared to a T1 cruiser. If CCP wants assault frigates to assault, i.e. apply DPS and be more resilient, then they need to enhance the AF's "frigate" defenses, i.e. sig/speed tanking, not resists. Speed tanking is interceptor territory, so the only thing left is to reduce sig. radius. Or, they could give immunity or resistance to anti-frigate measures, as suggested previously. Of those, neuts are the highest threat, and as far as I know no subcap has neut immunity, so it would be a unique ability for AF's only, making them a lot more desirable in all sorts of "assault" roles. RELATIVE to T1 frigates, T2 frigates are superior in EHP on base stats. That's what assault ships are designed for: lots of armor, lots of firepower. Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
Nikea Tiber Backwater Enterprises RD 38	Posted - 2016.10.26 08:23:24 - [42] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: To me an AF should be the ultimate hit and run raider. Very fast, can hit hard (high alpha) but low loiter time. So I agree with the -10% sig radius, maybe even -20%. Also increase base speed by at least 10% or give AB +20% speed boost. Pinpoint active targeting modules only useable on AF's making them ECM proof, but they need to take up a Medium Slot. Essentially the ultimate target painter. Also makes them awesome single target blasters. Allow them to use Medium size weapons by giving them the energy reductions like the BC gun platforms get when using large guns. In your first sentance you are describing skirmish rather than assault. Further increasing the speed over parity with the t1 counterpart is creating another class of interceptors... the very definition of a skirmisher. EWAR resistance shouldn't be a module; for the most part there are already modules that give a certain amount of resistance or cou teract the forms of existing EWAR. As it is, mids are tight on all AFs, this needs to be a role bonus, not some new module. Medium guns? You are proposing interceptors that have medium guns? I have perfect gunnery skills and a 5% tracking implant and still easily overspeed the tracking of my own SMALL turrets when I am flying an inty. Hell, a few of the faster t1 frigates are capable of it. You don't get high damage from medium turrets at or vs high speeds and angular velocities; you get no damage. This is why destroyers have a lot of small turrets rather than a few mediums. A frigate with medium guns would be useless at engaging other frigates, and at enough velocity to avoid getting hit by cruisers, can't hit cruisers itself. ABCs work because the projection range of large turrets greatly reduces the drawback of having slower tracking and larger sig resolution on the turrets, and also because they aren't large turrets mounted on a cruiser hull. my other nano is a polycarb
Agamemna Sheridan Die Gesandten des Todes Worlds United Fedo Force 8	Posted - 2016.10.26 13:11:15 - [43] - Quote No bubble imunity please. We allready have to mutch (allmost) uncatchable interceptor gangs out there. In order to fix them, I would suggest to first fix their massive fitting problems. Many AF are way to tight in PG and CPU. I mean look at the Retribution vs the Punisher. The Punisher is Tech 1 and has 175 CPU and 83,75 PG The Retribution is Tech 2 and has 175 CPU and wooping 70 PG while having one highslot more. Thats just a slap in the face. A Assault Frigate should easyly be able to fitt the "big" small guns without gimping the entire fitt. AF should be the hard hitters in a fast moving gang. Tackling is for interceptors.
Galinius Valgani Albertross Mining Corp. Off The Reservation. 42	Posted - 2016.10.26 13:27:31 - [44] - Quote I think we should wait for the 08.11. when the T3D nerf comes. Then decide if we really need a buff to all AFs or if there are only very poor performing ships needing a buff? I am already thinking they are changing to much in Ascension to be honest. Let the new Meta settle. On Grid Boosting Nerfed T3d Mining and Production Shakeup( EC ) Later TM
Rain6637 NulzSec 34321	Posted - 2016.10.26 13:39:09 - [45] - Quote Clearly the solution is introduce a T3 frigate that has 3 modes: Heavy Assault, Interceptor, and ? Was there talk of introducing T3 everything, including Battleships? Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Pandora Carrollon Dawn of a New Horizon The Republic. 678	Posted - 2016.10.27 00:11:38 - [46] - Quote Skirmish vs Assault Skirmish and Assault are actually similar tactically to me. The difference is normally a line between just there to damage or to have follow up and take an objective. If the idea is to STAY and pound, then speed is less important and tank is more important but the idea of a frigate that can take damage runs counter to the class, so that definition of 'assualt' doesn't really work well when talking about a frigate. Thus, I can only see the other side of it being 'hit and run' or what is being called skirmishing. I don't know of a class called Skirmish Frigate either. EWAR Frigates are very suscptible to EW as even a drone can take down their sensors without module backup help, and given the breadth of ECM types and jamming, a Frigate can't fit one size fits all defenses. So it's luck of the draw if you fit any kind of ECCM and hope it works. If you had something similar to a super target painter that only worked for t he painting ship and let all the weapons track on that, have it cost power, cpu, and a medium slot, as well as being restricted to ONLY AF's and maybe a skill requirement, then you have something that makes the Assault Frigate viable again. When you REALLY have to hit that medium/small target, send in the AF's. TANK If the base tank is reduced by 10% but speed bonuses increased, then the AF really becomes a speed tank only ship. It forces it to be flown by a competent pilot and make darned sure it avoids being multi-webbed, but the super webbers out there will still take it down to a killable speed. So it's not invincible, but it means that if it's flown right, it's nasty. The options I laid out would make these ships very dangerous to larger ships, especially in groups, but they can be countered effectively if you know their weaknesses. If they were slowed down enough, they'd pop almost worse than Stealth Bombers. It's just another variant on the Glass Cannon concept. 8 Golden Rules of EVE GÇó EVE is entirely PvP
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 204	Posted - 2016.10.27 02:18:53 - [47] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: Skirmish vs Assault Skirmish and Assault are actually similar tactically to me. The difference is normally a line between just there to damage or to have follow up and take an objective. If the idea is to STAY and pound, then speed is less important and tank is more important but the idea of a frigate that can take damage runs counter to the class, so that definition of 'assualt' doesn't really work well when talking about a frigate. Thus, I can only see the other side of it being 'hit and run' or what is being called skirmishing. I don't know of a class called Skirmish Frigate either. EWAR Frigates are very suscptible to EW as even a drone can take down their sensors without module backup help, and given the breadth of ECM types and jamming, a Frigate can't fit one size fits all defenses. So it's luck of the draw if you fit any kind of ECCM and hope it works. If you had something similar to a super target painter that only worked for t he painting ship and let all the weapons track on that, have it cost power, cpu, and a medium slot, as well as being restricted to ONLY AF's and maybe a skill requirement, then you have something that makes the Assault Frigate viable again. When you REALLY have to hit that medium/small target, send in the AF's. TANK If the base tank is reduced by 10% but speed bonuses increased, then the AF really becomes a speed tank only ship. It forces it to be flown by a competent pilot and make darned sure it avoids being multi-webbed, but the super webbers out there will still take it down to a killable speed. So it's not invincible, but it means that if it's flown right, it's nasty. The options I laid out would make these ships very dangerous to larger ships, especially in groups, but they can be countered effectively if you know their weaknesses. If they were slowed down enough, they'd pop almost worse than Stealth Bombers. It's just another variant on the Glass Cannon concept. You keep suggesting that frigates are not meant for tanking by EHP and are meant for tanking by speed, but that does not compute on the frigate vs frigate level. Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 204	Posted - 2016.10.27 02:38:16 - [48] - Quote Nikea Tiber wrote: Pandora Carrollon wrote: To me an AF should be the ultimate hit and run raider. Very fast, can hit hard (high alpha) but low loiter time. So I agree with the -10% sig radius, maybe even -20%. Also increase base speed by at least 10% or give AB +20% speed boost. Pinpoint active targeting modules only useable on AF's making them ECM proof, but they need to take up a Medium Slot. Essentially the ultimate target painter. Also makes them awesome single target blasters. Allow them to use Medium size weapons by giving them the energy reductions like the BC gun platforms get when using large guns. In your first sentance you are describing skirmish rather than assault. Further increasing the speed over parity with the t1 counterpart is creating another class of interceptors... the very definition of a skirmisher. EWAR resistance shouldn't be a module; for the most part there are already modules that give a certain amount of resistance or cou teract the forms of existing EWAR. As it is, mids are tight on all AFs, this needs to be a role bonus, not some new module. Medium guns? You are proposing interceptors that have medium guns? I have perfect gunnery skills and a 5% tracking implant and still easily overspeed the tracking of my own SMALL turrets when I am flying an inty. Hell, a few of the faster t1 frigates are capable of it. You don't get high damage from medium turrets at or vs high speeds and angular velocities; you get no damage. This is why destroyers have a lot of small turrets rather than a few mediums. A frigate with medium guns would be useless at engaging other frigates, and at enough velocity to avoid getting hit by cruisers, can't hit cruisers itself. ABCs work because the projection range of large turrets greatly reduces the drawback of having slower tracking and larger sig resolution on the turrets, and also because they aren't large turrets mounted on a cruiser hull. Interceptors can't hit that hard, they're for pinning people down. Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 113	Posted - 2016.10.27 02:39:16 - [49] - Quote 13kr1d1 wrote: Nikea Tiber wrote: Pandora Carrollon wrote: To me an AF should be the ultimate hit and run raider. Very fast, can hit hard (high alpha) but low loiter time. So I agree with the -10% sig radius, maybe even -20%. Also increase base speed by at least 10% or give AB +20% speed boost. Pinpoint active targeting modules only useable on AF's making them ECM proof, but they need to take up a Medium Slot. Essentially the ultimate target painter. Also makes them awesome single target blasters. Allow them to use Medium size weapons by giving them the energy reductions like the BC gun platforms get when using large guns. In your first sentance you are describing skirmish rather than assault. Further increasing the speed over parity with the t1 counterpart is creating another class of interceptors... the very definition of a skirmisher. EWAR resistance shouldn't be a module; for the most part there are already modules that give a certain amount of resistance or cou teract the forms of existing EWAR. As it is, mids are tight on all AFs, this needs to be a role bonus, not some new module. Medium guns? You are proposing interceptors that have medium guns? I have perfect gunnery skills and a 5% tracking implant and still easily overspeed the tracking of my own SMALL turrets when I am flying an inty. Hell, a few of the faster t1 frigates are capable of it. You don't get high damage from medium turrets at or vs high speeds and angular velocities; you get no damage. This is why destroyers have a lot of small turrets rather than a few mediums. A frigate with medium guns would be useless at engaging other frigates, and at enough velocity to avoid getting hit by cruisers, can't hit cruisers itself. ABCs work because the projection range of large turrets greatly reduces the drawback of having slower tracking and larger sig resolution on the turrets, and also because they aren't large turrets mounted on a cruiser hull. Interceptors can't hit that hard, they're for pinning people down. Their DPS is very close to AFs tho.
13kr1d1 Hedion University Amarr Empire 204	Posted - 2016.10.27 02:48:56 - [50] - Quote I agree, and interceptors need a nerf in that field. They can already run 8.0 warp and have great align times. Those two bonuses alone should be the basis of the chassis, not giving them more damage on top. Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices
xXuber-NitsheXx 94	Posted - 2016.10.27 02:54:59 - [51] - Quote 13kr1d1 wrote: I agree, and interceptors need a nerf in that field. They can already run 8.0 warp and have great align times. Those two bonuses alone should be the basis of the chassis, not giving them more damage on top. no no no no no no no no no no no no no NO! no one is touching my Shaleen no nerfs for her! She is my one true love. Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS. Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
Nikea Tiber Backwater Enterprises RD 38	Posted - 2016.10.27 04:22:16 - [52] - Quote I wasnt suggesting any changes to inties. @Pandora A frigate with medium guns would only be dangerous to a BC or BS. Due to tracking and sig resolution, medium guns on a frigate won't hit **** if you are maintaining transversal, and if you reduce your velocity to hit your target you get gibbed. Speed is important to any frigate as the damage avoidance greatly amplifies the limited repair capacity small modules have. If your intent is to stay on a target until one of you pops (assault), being able to retain speed in tackle range is paramount. There arent many ships of any class that don't need to avoid being webbed by multiple sources. Assault means you force a hard engagement that you will be unable to extract from; skirmish is the intent to never commit 100% to a fight in the attempt to keep the tactical situation liquid. Mobility has nothing to do with this as higher mobility is desireable for either tactic; you can't assail a target you can't catch. AFs don't need to step on the toes of inties by gaining a lot of speed; they just need parity with the t1 base hull. No "super painter." Hull based role bonus to reduce the effectiveness of ewar targeting you. AFs as an entire ship class haven't got enough mids. You are suggesting to make this problem worse by introducing a mandatory bandage module. @13kr1d1 I think you misunderstood what i meant, reading Pandora's first post she is basically suggesting that AFs become interceptors with medium weaponry, an idea that I think is a poor one due to turret mechanics. While I applaud any brainpower put to use to fix the liminal state of uselessness AFs have always been in, I do feel the need to point out what should be obvious problems. my other nano is a polycarb
Elmund Egivand Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 1716	Posted - 2016.10.27 04:49:27 - [53] - Quote Brigadine Ferathine wrote: 13kr1d1 wrote: Nikea Tiber wrote: Pandora Carrollon wrote: To me an AF should be the ultimate hit and run raider. Very fast, can hit hard (high alpha) but low loiter time. So I agree with the -10% sig radius, maybe even -20%. Also increase base speed by at least 10% or give AB +20% speed boost. Pinpoint active targeting modules only useable on AF's making them ECM proof, but they need to take up a Medium Slot. Essentially the ultimate target painter. Also makes them awesome single target blasters. Allow them to use Medium size weapons by giving them the energy reductions like the BC gun platforms get when using large guns. In your first sentance you are describing skirmish rather than assault. Further increasing the speed over parity with the t1 counterpart is creating another class of interceptors... the very definition of a skirmisher. EWAR resistance shouldn't be a module; for the most part there are already modules that give a certain amount of resistance or cou teract the forms of existing EWAR. As it is, mids are tight on all AFs, this needs to be a role bonus, not some new module. Medium guns? You are proposing interceptors that have medium guns? I have perfect gunnery skills and a 5% tracking implant and still easily overspeed the tracking of my own SMALL turrets when I am flying an inty. Hell, a few of the faster t1 frigates are capable of it. You don't get high damage from medium turrets at or vs high speeds and angular velocities; you get no damage. This is why destroyers have a lot of small turrets rather than a few mediums. A frigate with medium guns would be useless at engaging other frigates, and at enough velocity to avoid getting hit by cruisers, can't hit cruisers itself. ABCs work because the projection range of large turrets greatly reduces the drawback of having slower tracking and larger sig resolution on the turrets, and also because they aren't large turrets mounted on a cruiser hull. Interceptors can't hit that hard, they're for pinning people down. Their DPS is very close to AFs tho. The Taranis says 'hi!' A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
Vincent Pelletier Pelletier Imports and Exports 93	Posted - 2016.10.27 05:37:51 - [54] - Quote It's encouraging to see that no matter how silly some of CCP's idea might be at times, players have far more badly thought out, super overpowered craptacular "balancing" brain farts.
Nikea Tiber Backwater Enterprises RD 38	Posted - 2016.10.27 09:38:13 - [55] - Quote To every enyo pilot reading this thread: How would you feel about an enyo with the same base speed and agility as the incursus (or even the tristan, for that matter), a bit more fitting so you could make use of the utility high, and a role bonus that includes ewar resistance (not immunity)? my other nano is a polycarb
Memphis Baas 2140	Posted - 2016.10.27 12:08:52 - [56] - Quote Vincent Pelletier wrote: It's encouraging to see that no matter how silly some of CCP's idea might be at times, players have far more badly thought out, super overpowered craptacular "balancing" brain farts. Are we not meeting the quality requirements of General Discussion forum posts? Have CCP not completely ignored this thread?
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 113	Posted - 2016.10.28 02:35:10 - [57] - Quote Memphis Baas wrote: Vincent Pelletier wrote: It's encouraging to see that no matter how silly some of CCP's idea might be at times, players have far more badly thought out, super overpowered craptacular "balancing" brain farts. Are we not meeting the quality requirements of General Discussion forum posts? Have CCP not completely ignored this thread? Well... I mean they ignore everyone except CSM cronies...
Elmund Egivand Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 1721	Posted - 2016.10.28 03:44:19 - [58] - Quote Nikea Tiber wrote: To every enyo pilot reading this thread: How would you feel about an enyo with the same base speed and agility as the incursus (or even the tristan, for that matter), a bit more fitting so you could make use of the utility high, and a role bonus that includes ewar resistance (not immunity)? I say just do it like what HAC did with T1 cruiser. Bring agility and speed to somewhere in line with T1, just make them tankier and more DPS to make it clear that these guys are specialised for killing stuff. That way people might actually bring them to back up the Interceptors in small gangs for when stuff needs to die. They might actually be able to keep up for once. A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 712	Posted - 2016.10.29 13:51:41 - [59] - Quote You know, AF give some decent bang for the buck. They're considerably cheaper than T3D and all that, so they're perfectly viable for semi-cheap roams and such. Someone suggested that AFs be given more fitting...if CCP gave AF's, across the board, a hefty increase in fitting power, coupled with some speed (each AF should be between 5-10% faster than their tech 1 counterparts), that might be enough to give them a role of "relatively cheap but still potent general roaming ship". Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
The Golden Serpent The Abrahadabra Institute 194	Posted - 2016.10.29 13:58:50 - [60] - Quote I fly the Retribution somewhat. I have Level IV mastery on them, so I keep one to undock in when I fancy it. But after having more experience flying things like faction frigs, T1 destroyers even, and interceptors, I find AF slow, underpowered and clunky compared to a fast Dragoon. They are not what I expected when I started training into them. However, they are beautiful ships and I like to fly them to be different sometimes. But they are just fluff, pretty, mostly useless when compared to other options, and way overpriced. In most cases a Tormentor can do the same job for much less cost. To fix the problem I would give the Retribution a 10% small energy turret damage bonus, like the confessor. This would make them more desireable, but it would not replace the confessor. I don't know if this would be enough to get people to start flying them, but it would be a start. Immunity to EWAR would make them indispensable.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.