Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
m0cking bird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
42
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 18:43:00 -
[31] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Hahahaha. Those preliminary changes would make them so OP it isnt even funny. T1 fit AFs would dwarf officer fit pirate frigs for Goddess sake .. extra slots AND more bonuses ....
No wonder CCP has had issues sorting them if they start at the utmost extreme and then whittle away on them .. waste of time.
PS: Drool at prospect of Retribution with not only the original god-range but with god-tracking and 2nd mid .. trolololol.
Quoting someone who is often correct. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 22:43:00 -
[32] - Quote
the changes are fine maybe the retribution need a bigger damage bonus to stand on par with the others
about the mwd bonus i have my doubts i like it because it bring more ppl to fit a mwd to these ship and this is good, i dont like beacuse after the other changes the AFs dont need a role bonus they are already good enough. a AB bonus would be totally over the top |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
332
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 00:59:00 -
[33] - Quote
I remember making a similar thread 2 weeks before changed went live... :O Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Skex Relbore
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
52
|
Posted - 2011.12.26 20:17:00 -
[34] - Quote
m0cking bird wrote:
Anyway, from what I've read. The Bonuses and changes to the Enyo, Hawk and Retribution are not substantial. Atleast compared to the other assault frigates.
Bleh forums ate my original response.
Are you insane? Then Enyo and Retribution are the two biggest winners in this list. The wolf got screwed with yet another low (guess a Nano can go there) and lets see another spot to put a web on a shield rocket ship? that doesn't sound "not substantial" to me. |
m0cking bird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
45
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 04:00:00 -
[35] - Quote
Skex Relbore wrote:m0cking bird wrote:
Anyway, from what I've read. The Bonuses and changes to the Enyo, Hawk and Retribution are not substantial. Atleast compared to the other assault frigates.
Bleh forums ate my original response. Are you insane? Then Enyo and Retribution are the two biggest winners in this list. The wolf got screwed with yet another low (guess a Nano can go there) and lets see another spot to put a web on a shield rocket ship? that doesn't sound "not substantial" to me.
Calm down space cowboy. I should have also put the Ishkur, Wolf and Jaguar in there. However, I was to lazy. I know what you think I mean by my statements based on your response, but you don't understand. More words here and there (I'm just not into it). Also that was a quick response after a quick glance @ the purpose changes.
Read some of the things I've posted else where in the forums if you're bored and think It's even worth your time. |
Allota VaISK
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.27 14:41:00 -
[36] - Quote
m0cking bird wrote:
Read some of the things I've posted else where in the forums if you're bored and think It's even worth your time.
Its not
|
Lord FunkyMunky
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 12:29:00 -
[37] - Quote
i actually like the setups mentioned above, as long as interceptors are 2x the speed of the new assault frigates, and even smaller sig radius, then i'm sold :) |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
206
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 20:10:00 -
[38] - Quote
Still not seeing how making AF's de facto cruisers will not completely demolish balance on the small scale.
Sure, it would be nifty if they were viable in fleets and large romps but the only frig (Interceptors) that can currently claim that has bonuses unavailable elsewhere, specifically tailored to make that happen (point range & Sig redux). Increasing AF tank/spank to a level where it can function on the large scale makes it unbeatable on the small which is the wrong way of doing it.
Kind of warming up to the idea of sig redux though, not for any particular ship mind you but in general; 1Mn MWD = 250-300% bloom (ie. all users benefit and frigates/destroyers become needed to swat frigates/destroyers (especially ceptors!)). 10Mn MWD = 500% bloom (as is, pretty well balanced I think) 100MN MWD = 500% (Doesn't really matter. Even if its just 2x they'll still compete with moons in the fatness category )
Carry on. |
CobaltSixty
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
36
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 23:12:00 -
[39] - Quote
The solution for the role bonus is simple: -80% to powergrid requirements of 10MN Afterburners. - Scramble-immune speed (1680-2220 m/s) but slower than MWD-equipped frigates. - Terrible agility while speed boosting. - Identical CPU requirements as fitting 1MN MWD. - No break in capacitor consumption for the 10MN mod. - Vulnerable to kiting by MWD-equipped frigates. Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
207
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 10:32:00 -
[40] - Quote
Added mass affects agility even when not boosting, what you are probably looking at is align time which means time to reach 70% thrust .. so they will be fat-asses with abysmal acceleration (2-3 full cycles to top out (20s+)). Not sure what role you see them performing with that to be honest, only "good" thing I can see is that it can make the Hawk a proper bad-ass, like a mini-Tengu. Other than that it cripples them in small engagements as well as large engagements .. just sayin'
It does the same to the class as the AB boost would have done, huge benefits to ships with good native agility/speed and tracking/range .. double bonus if cap independent = Winmatar boost. All other ships are either very sensitive to mobility hits (tracking/range. See: blasters/rails/beams/rocks), need cap elsewhere or both.
PS: You are not particular vulnerable to MWD kiters if the speed difference is less than 30-40% or so, very easy to collapse an orbit when speeds are that close .. one heated cycle is all it takes (can do it with 1Mn AB's too, just takes better timing). PPS: Have I mentioned how much I ******* hate these forums and their unnatural urge to eat ones posts? |
|
Hungry Eyes
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
257
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 15:48:00 -
[41] - Quote
AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
53
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 08:28:00 -
[42] - Quote
Hungry Eyes wrote:AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense.
2/10, you're a terrible troll.
AB bonus is the only one that makes sense. Using an AB on an assault ship will always be preferable because the fitting requirements for a MWD are too high. Plus even with a bloom reduction, a MWD will give any shield tankers a sig the size of a cruiser.
A boost to AB is a much better idea, and complements (without nullifying) the recent buff to destroyers. |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
205
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 11:20:00 -
[43] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Hungry Eyes wrote:AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense. 2/10, you're a terrible troll. AB bonus is the only one that makes sense. Using an AB on an assault ship will always be preferable because the fitting requirements for a MWD are too high. Plus even with a bloom reduction, a MWD will give any shield tankers a sig the size of a cruiser. A boost to AB is a much better idea, and complements (without nullifying) the recent buff to destroyers.
blanket AB bonus would make the bad AF's still bad and the good AF's too good. this is why the proposal was shot down even before it left the hangar.
sig bloom isn't the best bonus you can put there and in all honesty, you can't bring AF's into a workable state without overlapping a bit on other ship's roles.
no, it doesn't step on the inties because a) AF's are still fatter and slower and b) to be as good tacklers as the tackle inties you need to cram a RF/domi disruptor there.
on the specifics, wolf could use a bit more cpu, and the retri could have that 5th high converted into a 5th turret (+ fittings to accommodate this of course. would be good to see the ship using the one gun that no other frigate can use and still have enough fitting space for stuff) [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
CobaltSixty
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
38
|
Posted - 2011.12.30 20:29:00 -
[44] - Quote
Hirana Yoshida wrote:Added mass affects agility even when not boosting Afterburners and microwarpdrives do not increase the ship's mass unless activated. Agility is not affected when the module is not in use.
Also, this whole idea of the disparity between the good and not-ideal Assault Ships increasing further is silly. The whole point of the AF boost (I think) is to bring up the bottom end closer to the top while giving all of them some new purpose. Whatever way they go, any role bonus that was not there previously is going to make these ships more dangerous than they were - and that's okay.
I do think that the microwarpdrive signature bonus is stepping on the Interceptor's toes, so an afterburner bonus but with a built-in penalty (terrible agility when activated, increased cap usage) by using the 10MN module seems appropriate. Turning it on will more than quintuple the mass of an assault ship yet still keeps the speeds far below what intereceptors are naturally capable of. -80% is even the same numeral used to apply the Interceptor's role bonus. How can you say no? Assault Ships - Retribution Fix and Balancing Proposal for Upcoming 4th Bonus |
Hungry Eyes
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
261
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 23:34:00 -
[45] - Quote
Svennig wrote:Hungry Eyes wrote:AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense. 2/10, you're a terrible troll. AB bonus is the only one that makes sense. Using an AB on an assault ship will always be preferable because the fitting requirements for a MWD are too high. Plus even with a bloom reduction, a MWD will give any shield tankers a sig the size of a cruiser. A boost to AB is a much better idea, and complements (without nullifying) the recent buff to destroyers.
and youre a douchebag, like most of your brethren from Test Alliance. you never have anything useful to contribute because most of you are missing half a brain. |
Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 00:57:00 -
[46] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:blanket AB bonus would make the bad AF's still bad and the good AF's too good. this is why the proposal was shot down even before it left the hangar. Somewhat yes, but the main reason is probably that last time people started running 10MN setups on SiSi and that was a bit unbalanced to say the least. If we could limit it to 1MN units and a modest bonus, say 50%, so that the other frigs will still be faster with MWD there's no reason why it couldn't work. |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 04:03:00 -
[47] - Quote
Hungry Eyes wrote:Svennig wrote:Hungry Eyes wrote:AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense. 2/10, you're a terrible troll. AB bonus is the only one that makes sense. Using an AB on an assault ship will always be preferable because the fitting requirements for a MWD are too high. Plus even with a bloom reduction, a MWD will give any shield tankers a sig the size of a cruiser. A boost to AB is a much better idea, and complements (without nullifying) the recent buff to destroyers. and youre a douchebag, like most of your brethren from Test Alliance. you never have anything useful to contribute because most of you are missing half a brain.
The best part of your post: the bit where you carefully refute the points I made. Oh wait. That didn't happen. Huh. All I see here is a mediocre attempt to insult me and my alliance. When all else fails, I guess? |
Svennig
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
57
|
Posted - 2012.01.02 04:07:00 -
[48] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Svennig wrote:Hungry Eyes wrote:AB bonus was a bad idea and will not happen again. MWD bloom reduction makes sense. more dps and tank makes sense. 2/10, you're a terrible troll. AB bonus is the only one that makes sense. Using an AB on an assault ship will always be preferable because the fitting requirements for a MWD are too high. Plus even with a bloom reduction, a MWD will give any shield tankers a sig the size of a cruiser. A boost to AB is a much better idea, and complements (without nullifying) the recent buff to destroyers. blanket AB bonus would make the bad AF's still bad and the good AF's too good. this is why the proposal was shot down even before it left the hangar. sig bloom isn't the best bonus you can put there and in all honesty, you can't bring AF's into a workable state without overlapping a bit on other ship's roles. no, it doesn't step on the inties because a) AF's are still fatter and slower and b) to be as good tacklers as the tackle inties you need to cram a RF/domi disruptor there. on the specifics, wolf could use a bit more cpu, and the retri could have that 5th high converted into a 5th turret (+ fittings to accommodate this of course. would be good to see the ship using the one gun that no other frigate can use and still have enough fitting space for stuff)
Blanket ANY bonus would have this affect. My point is merely that if you're going to be heavy handed with a broad change, then you may as well do so in a way which leave some fitting room remaining and doesn't completely blur the line between AFs and inties.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |