Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lyn Bunnions
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 19:24:00 -
[1]
To get this talk going I'll post what I think is the main issue with the ship class and then a suggested band-aid type fix to improve the class as a whole without going into ship by ship issues.
Value of the ship
Speed/Maneuverability: Frig>AF>Cruiser DPS: Cruiser>AF>Frig Survivability(tank and speed/size considered): Unwebbed AF>Cruiser>Webbed AF>Frig
Keep in mind that in most above situations an unwebbed Interceptor would be the best choice(a webbed Interceptor would probably die about as fast as a frigate on the Survivability scale) and likely set you back 16 million for a Crow, 10 for a Taranis and less than 8 for the others.
The tier 3 cruisers, Thorax/Moa/Rupture are generally superior to all AFs, while the tier 2 ones Vexor/Caracal/Stabber/Arbitrator are equivalent to AFs in power. The Vexor and the Arbitrator can probably be considered superior to all cruiser or smaller targets given the wicked combination that Nos and Drones can make.
Comparing prices
Thorax/Moa/Rupture- roughly 7 million(can be bought for as little as 5-6 million) Vexor/Caracal/Stabber/Arbitrator- roughly 4 million
Finally in terms of price the cheapest(and most useless) AFs start at around 6 million ISK the same price that the best cruisers cost.
The Problem
Currently an AF costs from 6-7 million for the really bad ones to 20 million or more for Ishkurs, yet they are outclassed by 4 million ISK cruisers. The best AFs cost as much as 3 times more than the best cruiser. In this situation, it would be fair(imo) if AFs did at least some things at a level approaching a cruiser's, to justify their prices.
One suggestion for a fix I'm sure there are a lot of ideas, but the one that was simplest to my mind was to slightly rework the much-discussed T2 resistance bonus that AFs receive. My basic idea is to implement the current bonuses as innate, just like HACs have them and replace them not with anything fancy but other resistance bonuses. I came up with 2 sets of new bonuses, one more in-line with RP reasonings and one more optimized for the actual benefit of the ships.
Secondary racial enemy version Amarr: 75% Thermal 50% EM Caldari: 75% Explo 50% EM Gallente: 75% EM 50% Explo Minmatar: 75% Kin 50% Explo
Current(EM/Ex/K/T, armor and shield)
Amarr 60/80/62.5/35 and 0/90/70/20 Caldari 60/10/62.5/86.2 and 0/60/70/80 Gallente 60/10/83.7/67.5 and 0/60/85/60 Minmatar 92.5/10/25/67.5 and 75/60/40/60
New
Amarr 80/80/62.5/86.2 and 50/90/70/80 Caldari 80/80/62.5/86.2 and 50/90/70/80 Gallente 92.5/55/83.7/67.5 and 75/80/85/60 Minmatar 92.5/55/83.7/67.5 and 75/80/85/60
Alternatively go for maximum optimization as opposed to RP(or claim that they borrowed from allied weapons tech to improve defenses):
Caldari: 75% EM 50% Ex Gallente: 75% Ex 50% EM
Getting
Caldari 92.5/55/62.5/86.2 and 75/80/70/80 Gallente 80/80/83.7/67.5 and 50/90/85/60
Hope the numbers are ok, feel free to point out if I messed up some calcs.
I think that this would be one easy way to get AFs to start justifying their cost without boosting their damage(and thus muscling in on the Interceptor's role). AFs would still have fairly average DPS/Cost ratios, but suddenly their survivability, already decent would finally be above cruiser level even in situations with lots of Nos. At a first glance, the new average unmodded resists of the ships would be 75%+, meaning that 1 SAR II on an AF would be tanking more effective damage than 1 MAR II on a cruiser. Combined with the size advantages of the AF we could see them as being much more valuable tools in PvP with only a minor boost in PvE(given that they could tank anything that would be killed with their dps anyway).
Anyway, feel free to add more suggestiong, maybe we can get these pretty ships fixed.
|
xenodia
Gallente Shadowrun Company
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 19:40:00 -
[2]
Actually with a NOS nerf coming, AF's will once again be well worth the isk. Up till now the biggest drawback was that youd get nossed into oblivion by cruisers and larger ships, so AFs were relegated to being frigate killers or really good pve ships as nos became more and more prevalent on setups.
|
Drazin DawnTreader
The Elear
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 19:46:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Drazin DawnTreader on 15/06/2007 19:47:13 The 20-22tf increase on SPR's hurts frigate sized ships (Especially a passive jaguar) more than anything else. CCP took a swing at Battlecruisers(Myrm/drake) and KO'd Frigates.
|
VanNostrum
Cataphract Securities
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 19:52:00 -
[4]
Actually increasing AF speed to frig speed would make them viable imo. If AFs are to frigs as HACs are to cruisers, AFs are still too damn slow. They're slower than frigs, slower than cruisers and slower than HACs. If being assault ships with good resistances should make them small, why aren't HACs as slow? Survivability in a frig is higher imo, especially as some of them are as agile as some inties out there. Same goes for cruisers as they can fit more modules in lows to make them more agile.
|
Ryf
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 19:54:00 -
[5]
I currently have Minmatar Frigate 5 and Destroyers 4. I have all pre-reqs needed to start training Assault Frigates.
I've been debating what I want to train from here: Assault Frigates or Destroyer V
When I compare the stats for Assault Frigates versus my Tech I Destroyer, I don't see much advantage to the Assault Frigates. Plus, training Destroyer V leads to Interdictors, which I definately want to learn.
The destroyer's speed is almost as high as the AF's. The destroyer's fire-power certainly seems to compensate for the slight advantages that AFs have. And of course, the destroyer is much less expensive than either Minmater AF
I'm thinking that my Tech 1 Destroyer could take most Tech 2 Assualt Frigates.
Am I wrong? Are the assault friagtes really 'all that and a bag of potato chips '?
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 19:55:00 -
[6]
While I'd love for AFs to get a buff, and I think it's justified, the cost comparison argument is pretty much a dead end. The prices are as as high as they are on all the popular models because there is demand for them--despite their problems--and limited supply. Buff AFs and the demand will go up as well as the prices. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
VanNostrum
Cataphract Securities
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 19:58:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Ryf I currently have Minmatar Frigate 5 and Destroyers 4. I have all pre-reqs needed to start training Assault Frigates.
I've been debating what I want to train from here: Assault Frigates or Destroyer V
When I compare the stats for Assault Frigates versus my Tech I Destroyer, I don't see much advantage to the Assault Frigates. Plus, training Destroyer V leads to Interdictors, which I definately want to learn.
The destroyer's speed is almost as high as the AF's. The destroyer's fire-power certainly seems to compensate for the slight advantages that AFs have. And of course, the destroyer is much less expensive than either Minmater AF
I'm thinking that my Tech 1 Destroyer could take most Tech 2 Assualt Frigates.
Am I wrong? Are the assault friagtes really 'all that and a bag of potato chips '?
Actually i consider Wolf to be the best AF out there with decent overall agility compared to other AFs, and has one of the best DPS among AF ships I can take out a destroyer any day in my wolf
|
PartyVaN
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 20:07:00 -
[8]
From what I've learned from asking here, each AFs resistance bonus from their racial frigate skill level (XX% shield and armor resist1, xx% shield and armor resist2) seems pointless, as these are already built in. Like if you were to compare AFs to HACs, HACs get the same buffed resists but don't lose out on most of their normal racial cruiser skill bonus simply to get the buffed resists.
So I think AFs could be boosted by letting them keep their current resists, but also letting them either keep their T1 counterparts skill bonus or inventing new combat oriented ones.
Now granted I've never flown an AF, but I think most of what Ive said is true. Its also the reason why I've never bother training for AFs (3 days on Destroyer V ftw)
|
Lyn Bunnions
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 20:10:00 -
[9]
I'd say that its a bit more tricky than just standard supply/demand. Right now I think AFs are pretty much dead weight for a seller excepting a very few models. As such Inventors have little incentive to research them and the prices stay up despite much of the T2 market collapsing.
The reason I went for the price argument is that it seems to hold up fairly well when compared to other classes. Right now the T2 cruisers are generally 2-3 times more expensive than tier 2 BCs but usually justify that price by being on par, if not better than the higher class of ships(not talking just about HACs mind). Command ships on the other hand are around twice the price of a basic BS which they can often outclass and slightly(very slightly) more expensive than a tier 3 BS which will usually be superior to them.
AFs are up to 5 times more expensive than cruisers(Ishkur is about 15-17 mill to the Vexor's 3-4) and yet are fairly clearly inferior in every respect besides PvE tanking. With my suggestion they would merely become much better PvP tankers, while gaining minor DPS at best(IF they choose to add damage mods) or none usually. Their PvE performance would generally stay the same since, precluding Missions/Plexes with more than 3 simultaneous damage types there was always an AF with the desired maximized resists even before this change and they don't get any boosts to the already high ones.
|
Liang Nuren
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 20:27:00 -
[10]
I recently took out a rigged Harpy in my Thrasher... and my skills are far from perfect.
Liang
Originally by: Dianabolic, of BOB, referring to MSN
the fact that many of us speak to the devs / gm's / employees of CCP on a regular basis as friends is already common knoweldge?
|
|
bldyannoyed
Dark Centuri Inc. Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 20:28:00 -
[11]
You've completely missed the point of the Assault Frigate i feel.
The ships in Eve aren't all just a progression from frig to cruiser to BS. Some of them go sideways a bit too.
The Assault Frigate isn't designed as direct competition to tech 1 cruisers. In the right circumstances yes, an AF can go 1v1 with and beat a cruiser, but thats not what they're for.
AF's deliver improved frigate sized firepower over their tech 1 counterparts, with improved survivability, sensors, and in most cases speed.
Nor are all AF's the same, some are naturally better suited to solo work ( Jag, ishkur, Vengeance, funnily enuff the ones that tend to cost more ) while others are more specific and work better as a gang. Harpy able to deliver almost instant damage at 100km for example, or a Wolf capable of throwing out silly DPS, as long as it doesnt get shot at too much.
Though i do agree completely about the bonuses, the resists should be inate and they should get another bonus. Not a resist bonus though, but another gunnery/missile/speed/ whatever bonus. For example, give the Jaguar +5% velocity per frig lvl instead of the resists. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected]) |
Killwing
Minmatar Alcohol Fueled Brutality X-PACT
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 21:00:00 -
[12]
Meh,I don'nt know about the other Af's but the Jags are great as they are,all it takes is pilot skills and you can take almost anything out. ________________________________ The public will more easly fall for a big lie,than for a small one
. |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 21:21:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 15/06/2007 21:20:13
Originally by: Lyn Bunnions
The reason I went for the price argument is that it seems to hold up fairly well when compared to other classes. Right now the T2 cruisers are generally 2-3 times more expensive than tier 2 BCs but usually justify that price by being on par, if not better than the higher class of ships(not talking just about HACs mind).
Have you compared AF vs Cruiser costs fitted? (Genuine question.) * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Ryysa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 21:23:00 -
[14]
imo... to be viable in pvp afs need either:
a) Better agility and speed (but not as fast as inties). b) To cost as much as cruisers or preferrably less. c) Invent some buzz here to make it better :o
Uh oh, and I think i need to get plenty of tinfoil and asbest, considering what happened the last time I posted in an AF thread.
EW Guide - KB Tool - PVP Event |
Tyd Drakken
CyberDyne Industries Terror In The System
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 21:37:00 -
[15]
i love my ishkur , tho i havnt used it sense i started lvl 3's but i would use it in pvp if i wanted to
|
Lyn Bunnions
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 21:50:00 -
[16]
Bah, forum ate my reply. Gist: Faster AFs across the board=fat ceptors. BC-level tanked AFs with ****ty damage(ie. my suggestion)= really hard to kill tacklers.
Costs:
SARII=300k Small Nos II=2.5 mill Small Neutrons=700k Small MWD II=2.5mill MARII=2mill Medium Nos II=2 mill Medium Neutrons=2.5 mill Medium MWD II=5 mill
Assuming that this basic template holds for other weapon systems and comparing a Vexor to an Ishkur for easy referencing:
Ishkur has 4/3/3, Vexor has 5/3/4. If they go nos they both cost basically the same to fit(weird Small nos prices make up for MAR II price). If they go guns then the vexor costs about 7 million more to fit. In both cases the Vexor pays back about 2.5 mill in net insurance(iirc) and the hull costs 4 mill to the Ishkur's 15. At worst that Vexor cost you 10 mill less than the frigate(all other mods being generally equal). Most would agree that for general pvp use the Vexor surpasses any AF quite easily.
Basically I'm trying to get you guys to just throw your own ideas into the mix here, see what can be done to make these ships more popular(no, I don't own a BPO :P ). I'd love to see more suggestions get offered and talked about :)
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 22:32:00 -
[17]
Thanks for that price breakdown.
Basically I'd like AFs to go one of several ways, in order of the degree of change:
1. The HAC route. Make the resist bonus inherent, add a 4th bonus appropriate to the ship. There's been about a billion threads with suggestions on this.
2. The Counter-Counter route. Give AFs resistance to the frigate Achilles' Heels: NOS and Web.
3. The Assault route. Completely rework AFs, and make them platforms for large weapon systems.
4. The Escort route. Completely rework them, and give them a unique ability to draw fire from protected ships with a special module.
#1 and 2 are my favorite, just because I like AFs a lot as they are: glorified T1 frigates that are a blast to fly. #3 and #4 are a lot more interesting, in that they provide unique roles for the class.
#2 and #4 probably would present some technical challenges. #1 and #3 seem much more straightforward. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
VanNostrum
Cataphract Securities
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 22:32:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ryysa imo... to be viable in pvp afs need either:
a) Better agility and speed (but not as fast as inties). b) To cost as much as cruisers or preferrably less. c) Invent some buzz here to make it better :o
Uh oh, and I think i need to get plenty of tinfoil and asbest, considering what happened the last time I posted in an AF thread.
my thoughts exactly a bit of speed increase would make them a lot more useful
|
xenodia
Gallente Shadowrun Company
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 23:22:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ryf I currently have Minmatar Frigate 5 and Destroyers 4. I have all pre-reqs needed to start training Assault Frigates.
I've been debating what I want to train from here: Assault Frigates or Destroyer V
When I compare the stats for Assault Frigates versus my Tech I Destroyer, I don't see much advantage to the Assault Frigates. Plus, training Destroyer V leads to Interdictors, which I definately want to learn.
The destroyer's speed is almost as high as the AF's. The destroyer's fire-power certainly seems to compensate for the slight advantages that AFs have. And of course, the destroyer is much less expensive than either Minmater AF
I'm thinking that my Tech 1 Destroyer could take most Tech 2 Assualt Frigates.
Am I wrong? Are the assault friagtes really 'all that and a bag of potato chips '?
Skilled destroyer vs noob assault frig = advantage destroyer Skilled destroyer vs skilled assault frig = dead destroyer
Yes, destroyers have more raw firepower, but they also have a huge sig radius and crappy resists, mediocre shields/armor, and relatively few mid/low slots because of the high number of high slots. This combines to make them glass jaw setups which deal a lot of theoretical damage but in an actual fight they end up dead before they can bring that firepower to bear. A dead ship doesnt dish out much DPS.
|
xenodia
Gallente Shadowrun Company
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 23:25:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 15/06/2007 21:20:13
Originally by: Lyn Bunnions
The reason I went for the price argument is that it seems to hold up fairly well when compared to other classes. Right now the T2 cruisers are generally 2-3 times more expensive than tier 2 BCs but usually justify that price by being on par, if not better than the higher class of ships(not talking just about HACs mind).
Have you compared AF vs Cruiser costs fitted? (Genuine question.)
I spend more on a fully T2 fitted thorax than I do a fully t2 fitted Enyo or Ishkur. Mainly because the guns cost like a mil or 2 less each, and there are less slots to fill overall. That more than makes up the difference in ship cost. Of course a fully t2 fitted thorax is still flat out nasty, too. With a nos nerf, I think you will start to see more assault frigates used in pvp again though, as thats their biggest downfall vs larger ships.
|
|
Caios
Caldari Unified Refining Federation Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 03:49:00 -
[21]
Real bonuses or speed boost. Give these puppies some teeth.
|
Lance Fighter
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 04:00:00 -
[22]
hmm what you did there in the first post was make the assault frigate into a omgwtf-resists kinda ship - 80% resists more or less across the board? wth is the point? the retri would become more of an armor tanking pve behemoth than it already is (meh it sucks for level 3s for me :( ) But really, the amarr one especally needs a boost - it loses a bonus to a stupid cap use mult. Drop cap use on lasers across the board, give amarr ships USEFULL boni!
|
Phelan Lore
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 06:55:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Lyn Bunnions
Survivability(tank and speed/size considered): Unwebbed AF>Cruiser>Webbed AF>Frig
False! AFs are too slow even unwebbed. They aren't hard to hit and no matter how fantastic you think your AF tanks... it doesn't.
A well fit cruiser or even T1 frig is more survivable than an AF. -
|
Sailon
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 07:44:00 -
[24]
Amarr 80/80/62.5/86.2 and 50/90/70/80 Caldari 80/80/62.5/86.2 and 50/90/70/80 Gallente 92.5/55/83.7/67.5 and 75/80/85/60 Minmatar 92.5/55/83.7/67.5 and 75/80/85/60
lets look your em resistances its big no for amarrians now our cant even kill af with lasers nice boost.
|
Gee Lok
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 09:03:00 -
[25]
Value of the ship The market sets the price according to how the consumers value each ship.
Comparing prices The market values assault ships more highly than T1 cruisers.
The Problem You are asking for a fix on the grounds that cruisers are better value than assault ships. Thus you want Assault frigates to be buffed.
The Outcome The demand for assault ships will increase driving up the price.
|
Danari
Amarr Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 11:27:00 -
[26]
I've long looked at afs as flying coffins. They're just too heavy.
I haven't revisited using an af under current pvp doctrine of survivability and pilot skills, but it seems to me sacrificing a bit of tank -- perhaps using just one or two lows to fill resist holes, forgoing a repper, using a mwd and 1-2 istabs. Are they really that bad fitted that way?
I'm most familiar with small combat using Minmatar. A jag with 3 150mm acs arbie rocket launcher, mwd/web/scram/extender, 2 istabs and an overdrive (AWU 1), working within the limitations of the ship, I would be quite comfortable using this against frigs, and might prefer it against skilled frig pilots rather than a cruiser. Speed at about 2400, and it should have reasonable agility.
|
Susan Acid
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 11:41:00 -
[27]
For me (gallente)AFs was something I trained to get into a HAC.
Gank Enyo with blasters and 2 MFS does good damage but has no survivability.
Same with Ishkur tbh.
AFs are overpriced imo
|
Cmdr Sy
IMPERIAL SENATE Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 13:23:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 17/06/2007 13:28:57
Great thread, disagree with the stats.
First off, as an ex-AF pilot I wouldn't say no to extra speed. There are actually various ways this could be achieved, aside from increasing base speed. You could give AFs a bonus to Afterburner speed multiplier, or MWD capacitor "bonus" similar to what the Thorax gets. Then "heavy tackler" would no longer be a joke. But the speed issue does need looking at, especially when it comes to Amarr and Gallente AFs, which lose a chunk of speed compared to the T1 frig on which they are based.
Base speeds
Punisher: 250 m/s Retribution: 240 m/s Vengeance: 230 m/s
Merlin: 230 m/s Hawk: 225 m/s Harpy: 235 m/s
Incursus: 300 m/s Enyo: 240 m/s Ishkur: 250 m/s
Rifter: 320 m/s Wolf: 295 m/s Jaguar: 325 m/s
As you can see, the Caldari and Minmatar have AFs which are roughly as fast as, or faster than, the original T1 frig. The Amarr and Gallente get seriously gimped. To bring them into line with the other AFs, I would suggest increasing Amarr AF base speeds to 250 m/s and Gallente to 300 m/s.
Interceptor base speeds are anything from 40% to 85% faster than this, so actually a 10-20% base speed increase across the board wouldn't be a bad thing. As things stand, many of the AFs are barely faster than a cruiser with an MWD fitted, and many AF setups choose ABs anyway so as not to sacrifice all tanking. Speed-boosted AFs still wouldn't compete with interceptors doing well in excess of the 2km/s they would be capable of, but they would at least finally surpass cruisers in this department.
Onto the armour stats
Originally by: "Lyn Bunnions" New
Amarr 80/80/62.5/86.2 and 50/90/70/80 Caldari 80/80/62.5/86.2 and 50/90/70/80 Gallente 92.5/55/83.7/67.5 and 75/80/85/60 Minmatar 92.5/55/83.7/67.5 and 75/80/85/60
I have to disagree with that.
What that would do it leave Gallente and Minmatar with holes in their explosive tanks, while not burdening Amarr and Caldari with any such defficiency. On top of that, all race AFs would be immune to energy weapons, with Amarr up against 80%+ armour resists every time.
I think the current bonus system is fine. Currently we have:
(Race) Frigate Skill Bonus: 15% bonus to Shield and Armor (enemy main racial) resistance and 10% bonus to Shield and Armor (enemy secondary racial) resistance per level.
As has been suggested, this can simply be turned into a built-in bonus as with Heavy Assault Ships, and a new bonus added in line with what exists on each AF's HAC counterpart. Which actually would be quite rational. Then we would have:
New AF bonuses
Retribution: 5% RoF Vengeance: 5% all armour resistances
Hawk: 5% missile RoF or 5% missile flight time Harpy: 5% all shield resistances
Enyo: 5% less penalty to max capacitor (or maybe 5% falloff) Ishkur: (something other than 10% to drone hitpoints and damage)
Wolf: 7.5% tracking or 5% RoF Jaguar: 7.5% tracking or 5% RoF
That would be pretty cool. In survivability, AFs would be at least on a par with a T1 cruiser then, and faster in speed. Consider even a T1 PVP setup on an Arbitrator, Vexor, Thorax, Rupture, Stabber, even a Maller. We all know an AF's chances against those, even if nos is used sparingly.
You can see now how the roles would look, the Retribution a non-tackler bringing a ton of DPS into gangs, the Vengeance a Maller-style supertank, the Enyo with the MWD cap bonus and 300 m/s base speed being the ultimate fast attack blaster frig, like an Incursus not made of paper, and so on.
Incidentally, to sell my other idea, increasing the capacity of Small Capacitor Booster II from 15.0 m^3 to 16.0 m^3 would make things even more interesting.
Logoffs
|
Crescens
Caldari Dark Tornado Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 13:33:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Gee Lok Value of the ship The market sets the price according to how the consumers value each ship.
Comparing prices The market values assault ships more highly than T1 cruisers.
The Problem You are asking for a fix on the grounds that cruisers are better value than assault ships. Thus you want Assault frigates to be buffed.
The Outcome The demand for assault ships will increase driving up the price.
To people whining that AFs aren't good enough to justify their cost, re-read the above post then re-read it again. AFs base price is 2-3 million, the rest is market forces.
|
Cmdr Sy
IMPERIAL SENATE Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 13:40:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 17/06/2007 13:40:54
Market forces are not the issue here. Nos isn't that big a deal either, so the upcoming "nerf" whatever it is, won't make AFs that much more viable. This is pure performance, nothing more. AFs need to be given a boost to improve performance, after that the market can do whatever it likes.
Logoffs
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |