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
|
|
Hoshi
Blackguard Brigade Phalanx Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 13:45:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Crescens
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.
The problem is the same as it was with the cerb pre invention. They are subpar pvp ships but they do make fairly nice pve ships. That's what drives there cost. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
Lyn Bunnions
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 14:32:00 -
[32]
@Cmdr Sy
My initial intention was to just start the talk off with what I thought the simplest fix was. Also note that I offered a slightly switched version of the resists for the Gallente and Caldari, which left them with pretty optimal numbers for armor and shield respectively.
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
Regarding the worry that Amarr would have more trouble than others in breaking the new tanks, EM wouldn't be anyone's highest base resist and Thermal would be most ships' lowest. Amarr wouldn't be in any bigger trouble than before excluding Caldari AFs which in all honesty are kinda ****** with that EM whole just like Gallente are with their Ex one, hardly fair when some races have optimal "racial" resists.
Mostly your bonus suggestions look good tho, something like that would definitely help AFs as well. Maybe a 7.5% rep amount bonus for the Ishkur, cementing a more tank role to the Enyo's gank.
|
Cmdr Sy
IMPERIAL SENATE Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 15:02:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Lyn Bunnions Maybe a 7.5% rep amount bonus for the Ishkur, cementing a more tank role to the Enyo's gank.
I would certainly support that. Essentially the SAR II would be repping for 110 hp rather than 80 hp, which would give it a little extra tanking oomph, but we would have to see what happens with small nos next week to judge whether that would boost it too much. Certainly a tanking Ishkur would be a nice complement to the Enyo becoming an MWD blaster boat with 2-3km/s max speed depending on how far its base speed is boosted.
The real reason to increase base speed though, would be to give AB-fitted active tank setups the extra speed they so badly need right now. Since by definition they are not particularly good tacklers, active tanking doesn't come into play very often. All you've got is hitpoints and better resists than standard. It doesn't take much to break that, and the easy option is usually to give up and buy an inty instead.
Logoffs
|
Grimpak
Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 16:23:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Cmdr Sy
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
meh
I would prefer something like:
retri: +7,5% tracking (zomg mobile turret platform) together with a boost to grid and converting that useless 5th high slot into a turret slot vengy: good idea tbh, or maybe the first khanid MKII ship here with them missile bonuses?
enyo: hmm.. 2nd dmg bonus ishkur: 10% rep bonus ftw
jaguar: +5% RoF tbh wolf: +5% dmg tbh, but that tracking bonus is cool too.
hawk: either better RoF or better missile speed. this ship is just half step away to become a mini-raven. I would also swap that 5th high slot for another med. harpy: good one, altho it's a bit hard to give a decent bonus without making it too overpowered.
together with an overall increase in agility and shaving arround 35-40% of their weight and HP increase.
instead of making them faster, why not making them more agile? -------
Originally by: Tiuwaz for caldari perception weapons that hit up to 100km are short range weapons
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 17:09:00 -
[35]
RE: A speed increase. My guess is that it's quite intentional that AFs aren't particularly speedy, and I think the motive is to preserve at least one area where T1 frigs are useful. Intys are already faster of course, but increasing AF speed over that of T1 frigs wouldn't help. (And I think Intys should be weaker in tank or offensive power than they are.) * * * 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 |
Bentula
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 17:20:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Cmdr Sy Edited by: Cmdr Sy on 17/06/2007 14:34:42 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.
As a AF pilot i can tell you that it wouldnt help much. Afs problem isnt the base speed, my speed when not using mwd or AB is just fine. The problem is the high mass.
Just some example:
Going from thorax to brutix you have a 10.4% mass increase. Or in other words a single rig could make a brutix handle like a cruiser. The difference is low.
Going from incursus to ishkur we look at a difference of 60% in mass. The difference wrecks you for crappy speed.
There is no way you can justify a AF having double the mass of what the frigate sized speed modules are designed to handle(1mn vs. 2000000kg). Most t2 ships actually have the same or less mass than the t1 ships they are derived from.
Tbh if we want to go that heavy tackler route we should give the AFs web immunity, that would kinda fit with the whole heavy tackling role(and i could put a sticker on my AF reading "i break for nobody").
|
Cmdr Sy
IMPERIAL SENATE Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.06.17 20:36:00 -
[37]
Yes, I would settle for greater agility rather than base speed.
I wouldn't want them made faster than their T1 counterparts anyway though, I never implied that. Just equivalent. Amarr and Gallente are getting a really rough deal at the moment with speed, and that needs looking at whether or not some sort of mass reduction is applied.
Vengeance though, I wouldn't like to see turned into a missile boat. The basic concept is fine as it is, it just needs to tank better. That wonderful cap recharge bonus to me says it's supposed to be an active tank. It's OK if it's a bit lacking in firepower, but it lacks the endurance that is supposed to make up for it. The Retribution is supposed to be the gank DPS platform, but in practice it's also a more effective tank than the Vengeance. I think the Amarr AFs would be fine with the same bonuses as the Zealot and Sacrilege. I think that's a reasonable request.
Ishkur doesn't need a whole 10% rep bonus, even the 7.5% characteristic of Gallente may be excessive as things stand. Not sure about giving the Enyo a second damage bonus, I think a MWD cap bonus would be more reasonable, but on the other hand Minmatar aren't balance-breaking with theirs. I prefer to err on the side of caution and don't want to make anything into a top-of-the-class solo pwnmobile. I can just picture the whining if those changes went through like that. The Ishkur especially.
It's a tough thing to balance, but CCP have a better idea of the wider impacts, so it's up to them to judge. I hope they're not going to skim through this thinking it's another nerf whine.
Logoffs
|
Grimpak
Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 08:29:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Cmdr Sy Yes, I would settle for greater agility rather than base speed.
I wouldn't want them made faster than their T1 counterparts anyway though, I never implied that. Just equivalent. Amarr and Gallente are getting a really rough deal at the moment with speed, and that needs looking at whether or not some sort of mass reduction is applied.
Vengeance though, I wouldn't like to see turned into a missile boat. The basic concept is fine as it is, it just needs to tank better. That wonderful cap recharge bonus to me says it's supposed to be an active tank. It's OK if it's a bit lacking in firepower, but it lacks the endurance that is supposed to make up for it. The Retribution is supposed to be the gank DPS platform, but in practice it's also a more effective tank than the Vengeance. I think the Amarr AFs would be fine with the same bonuses as the Zealot and Sacrilege. I think that's a reasonable request.
Ishkur doesn't need a whole 10% rep bonus, even the 7.5% characteristic of Gallente may be excessive as things stand. Not sure about giving the Enyo a second damage bonus, I think a MWD cap bonus would be more reasonable, but on the other hand Minmatar aren't balance-breaking with theirs. I prefer to err on the side of caution and don't want to make anything into a top-of-the-class solo pwnmobile. I can just picture the whining if those changes went through like that. The Ishkur especially.
It's a tough thing to balance, but CCP have a better idea of the wider impacts, so it's up to them to judge. I hope they're not going to skim through this thinking it's another nerf whine.
tbh even with the changes I said they would still die miserably to cruisers.
the most important issue with the assault frigs is that they really don't have a defined role. -------
Originally by: Tiuwaz for caldari perception weapons that hit up to 100km are short range weapons
|
Psym0n
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 09:12:00 -
[39]
They need an additional damage bonuse. Look at Enyo and its Interceptor equivelant
Ceptor - 10% damage per level Enyo - 5% damage per legel
same with Caldari
Crow - 10% damage per level Harpy - 5% damage per level.
Give them a 4th bonus of +5% damage per level of AF, and its a good effort.
|
Cpt Branko
Partisan Warfare Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 09:26:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Psym0n They need an additional damage bonuse. Look at Enyo and its Interceptor equivelant
Ceptor - 10% damage per level Enyo - 5% damage per legel
same with Caldari
Crow - 10% damage per level Harpy - 5% damage per level.
Give them a 4th bonus of +5% damage per level of AF, and its a good effort.
Ermmm... Minnie AFs get a 5% damage for their frig skill and 5% damage for their AF skill. In the damage-dealing respect, they're fine. Making their resists innate (thereby providing room for another frig-skill bonus), and replacing that with an tanking/utility/speed/whatever bonus would help them greatly. For example, giving the Wolf the 7.5% tracking bonus the Rifter has, or giving it a MWD cap penalty reduction or something would all be nice.
However, AFs could really use a significant mass reduction to make them more maneuverable & faster with a speed boosting module. Many T1 cruisers are faster when using MWD then AFs, and do we need to go on how AF cap isn't too hot anyway, especially after the MWD penalty?
The real dangers for an AF are medium/heavy NOS (and everyone and their mother is packing it, disabling you), web (making you a sitting duck) or just a pack of light drones (just killing you).A combination of two or three of these means you're 100% dead. Oh, yes. Certain AFs which could in theory fight outside medium NOS range, well, have a severe speed problem due to high mass. So we're back to the 'reduce mass' part.
|
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Free Traders
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:44:00 -
[41]
I'd agree with the mass/agility change. At least the Caldari bricks would fly a bit better.
Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
|
Acoco Osiris
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.06.19 00:42:00 -
[42]
One thing I'm just going to throw in here.
AF's would make excellent solo 0.0 ratters. They've got the beef to take out most 0.0 rats, and they can run away from any player pirates except T1 frigates and inties. MWDs to escape bubbles may be a problem, but I'm sure it could be worked around. ------------------------------ One more soldier off to war... And one Velator in my hangars. |
Aurael Drakewing
Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.19 01:37:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Crescens
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.
One thing I think on this issue is that AFs still have high prices because they aren't being invented as often as other ships. I don't know about checking the market for such things, but I see fewer AFs than I do just about any other shiptype (aside from Destroyers). Most of the remainder of the T2 market has crashed because of invention...if a product sells well, people will be trying to invent them left, right, and center. If, however, it doesn't sell (like AFs compared to, say, HACs or Recons) it won't be invented as often, so there is almost negligible market impact because the market supply doesn't increase as much.
Think about it this way, with current market prices would you rather buy and fit out an AF, or a Cruiser? They both cost about the same (with the advantage to cruisers after insurance payouts I believe) and the cruiser has better tank/gank while being just as maneuverable if not more so...
|
Comie Dey
|
Posted - 2007.06.19 02:18:00 -
[44]
Im new to the AF thing, tho i LOVE them... what little ive flown of them.
I have a question tho, something ive noticed that makes no sence. Im caldari so its all i know.
The Hapry and the Hawk have the same bonus that states a bonus to both thermal and kinetic resistance for both the shield and the armor, yet the bonus seems only to apply to the armor and not the shield... am i missing something or is this really a bug/oversight of the devs?
and im unsure on what the role of an AF is... as the T1 frigates do seem to be nothing more than a parting gift of an old age.
|
alexreborn
|
Posted - 2007.06.19 03:08:00 -
[45]
Edited by: alexreborn on 19/06/2007 03:08:14 i definately agree with the OP on raising the resists on the AF's. particularly the EM resists on the caldari/gallente ships.. very big hole indeed.
I would alos like to give a little spiel about AF's.
AF's are not a 1 man pwn mobile. You shoud not be able to PWN a cruiser.. MAybe if youre better skilled, and the cruiser lacks the modules to track u down then sure u win, but if not, then the cruiser has to win hands down.
AFs work in gangs. They are for fast hit and run attacks. You warp to a belt, kill the target and warp out. 3-5 AFs will pwn any cruiser. will take on a BC, and even a BS and win.
|
Alapesha
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 11:47:00 -
[46]
While i agree about the resistances, as i see the assault frigates being the B-Wing of the Eve world (tho it doesnt really feel like it right now) i do wonder if apart from the improved resistances that the OP stated - which makes me think that it would go along way towards solving the current issue, i had an odd thought.
Would an Extra Mid/Low slot, one or the other or maybe both depending, either help or overpower things? as surely it would allow that little bit extra scope.
Or maybe the AF's get a bonus to reducing the effects of webbers on them as an additional AF skill bonus?
and i agree with the person who stated that they are way to heavy for the small gain.
|
Cedric Diggory
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 11:58:00 -
[47]
Whilst a cruiser costs anywhere between 3 to 8 million isk and an assault frigate anywhere between 8 and 20 million, once fitted (assuming you only put on the best, which for PVP you'd be mad not to) both have an equivelant value.
Seems pretty balanced to me...
|
Cpt Branko
Partisan Warfare Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 12:06:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Cedric Diggory Whilst a cruiser costs anywhere between 3 to 8 million isk and an assault frigate anywhere between 8 and 20 million, once fitted (assuming you only put on the best, which for PVP you'd be mad not to) both have an equivelant value.
Seems pretty balanced to me...
The point is: to match a T2 fitted AF, you need to bring out a T1 fitted cruiser (with some good named modules, like, a good webber), and you're set.
Therefore, for typically better or equivalent performance, T1 cruiser price + cruiser fittings + insurance cost - insurance payout << AF price + AF fittings + insurance cost - insurance payout.
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 12:20:00 -
[49]
Originally by: alexreborn
i definately agree with the OP on raising the resists on the AF's. particularly the EM resists on the caldari/gallente ships.. very big hole indeed.
Your low signature reduces most of the damage you're going to take. Your suggestion that they need to resistance vulnerability is just circuitous and silly. Have you heard of rigs? Shield hardeners? CPU enhancing hardwiring?
Originally by: alex
AF's are not a 1 man pwn mobile. You shoud not be able to PWN a cruiser.. MAybe if youre better skilled, and the cruiser lacks the modules to track u down then sure u win, but if not, then the cruiser has to win hands down.
AFs work in gangs. They are for fast hit and run attacks. You warp to a belt, kill the target and warp out. 3-5 AFs will pwn any cruiser. will take on a BC, and even a BS and win.
To reiterate Ryssa in that other thread, the opportunity cost is simply not in your favor--you are extremely nos vulnerable, at minimum for a speed mod, and worst for an active tank and guns.
AFs work in gangs? The question isn't what does or doesn't, the question is given the alternatives and implicit costs, how can we achive a goal? If you want speed and enormous survivability inspite of the low amount of HPs fly ceptors, or interdictors and you'll shutdown all AFs and some cruisers without too much trouble. Hell, fly cruisers, they insure better, have better slot layourts and have more rig options, and fundamentally, deal better and more varied damage.
Again, 3-5 Afs destroy a bs? Guess what, that's irrelevant, a handful of cruisers and destroyers give you anti-frig options, ewar and damage for a fraction of the cost.
And no, you wont warp into a belt and kill anything, the dps on AFs is terrible, use t2 ammo and you've gimped your cap/navigation so bad your nub lowsec victims will just laugh and eat you alive. Did I mention Afs handle very poorly?
Once the bastard interceptors are revised, perhaps these ships can be revisited. ___ Junkie Beverage: i use your tears to cyno in my laughter
|
Cedric Diggory
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 12:24:00 -
[50]
Quote: The point is: to match a T2 fitted AF, you need to bring out a T1 fitted cruiser (with some good named modules, like, a good webber), and you're set.
Therefore, for typically better or equivalent performance, T1 cruiser price + cruiser fittings + insurance cost - insurance payout << AF price + AF fittings + insurance cost - insurance payout.
Fixing insurance to match the value of your ship and fittings would surely be a simpler solution?
|
|
Vasiliyan
The Flying Swan
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 12:42:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Cedric Diggory
Fixing insurance to match the value of your ship and fittings would surely be a simpler solution?
That would screw the game in so many other ways.
AFs are excellent PVE ships for some situations; I don't think they actually need balancing for PvP that much - not every ship needs to have a PvP role.
|
Cpt Branko
Partisan Warfare Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 12:56:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Vasiliyan
Originally by: Cedric Diggory
Fixing insurance to match the value of your ship and fittings would surely be a simpler solution?
That would screw the game in so many other ways.
AFs are excellent PVE ships for some situations; I don't think they actually need balancing for PvP that much - not every ship needs to have a PvP role.
I agree that mucking up insurance is bad, but saying that AFs don't need a PvP role is saying Amarr are 100% fine because they can PvE, and not everyone has to have a role in PvP.
Yes, they do need a PvP role, as every combat ship needs. Do you really think it's logical for an "assault ship" to be useless for actually assaulting ships?
|
Cmdr Sy
IMPERIAL SENATE Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 17:34:00 -
[53]
Regarding the cruiser vs AF thing...
T1-fitted T1 cruisers should have no problems killing AFs if fitted as they are supposed to be. The tech level of your guns, drones, nos, tank and warp disruptor doesn't matter, it doesn't matter whether your web is X5 or T2, and it doesn't matter whether your pulse lasers or ACs are frigate or cruiser-sized once the web is applied. At the end of the day, if you have an effective close range PVP setup (typically costing a couple of mil), your chances are better than even.
Speaking of webs, wouldn't it be nice if AFs had the option to deal damage from 15km without utterly gimping it? It's interesting how the Retribution got the optimal range bonus (it can't tackle), while the Vengeance (which can) had it changed to damage because of player whining. This means no pulse, it has to be beams with their rubbish tracking.
Originally by: Vasiliyan not every ship needs to have a PvP role.
Ha, don't get me started on the Coercer.
At least the Punisher is a nice toy for playing with newbies.
Logoffs
|
VanNostrum
Cataphract Securities
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 18:47:00 -
[54]
Speaking for retribution, moving the 5th high slot to med would make me a very very happy man
|
Cmdr Sy
IMPERIAL SENATE Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 19:01:00 -
[55]
Originally by: VanNostrum Speaking for retribution, moving the 5th high slot to med would make me a very very happy man
Same here, that one has been getting signed for a couple of years.
Logoffs
|
Gaius Kador
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.06.22 22:52:00 -
[56]
Retribution
4xGatling Pulse / w Scorch - 1xSmall nosfII Webber SARII, 400 Tungsten, EANMII, Thermic Plate, Regenerative Membrane
RIGS: 2xTrimarks
I deal, therefore I am.
I sustain, therefore I am. ----------------------------------------------
|
VanNostrum
Cataphract Securities
|
Posted - 2007.06.22 23:44:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Gaius Kador Retribution
4xGatling Pulse / w Scorch - 1xSmall nosfII Webber SARII, 400 Tungsten, EANMII, Thermic Plate, Regenerative Membrane
RIGS: 2xTrimarks
I deal, therefore I am.
I sustain, therefore I am.
i couldnt fit this with maxed out skills
|
Original Species
|
Posted - 2007.06.22 23:55:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Original Species on 22/06/2007 23:54:51 Anything a AF can do, a ceptor can do better...Take my crusader for example..Fast, tanks well, as much dps as a amarr af, and did I mention FAST...
|
Grimpak
Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.23 00:49:00 -
[59]
Originally by: VanNostrum Speaking for retribution, moving the 5th high slot to med would make me a very very happy man
while it is a good thing to do, I still prefer to transform the 5th high into a turret slot and adding a grid increase just enough to barely fit 5 beams.
now THAT would be something. ---
truth about EVE: Originally by: Cpt Branko "Guns are fine, boost players"
|
Gaius Kador
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.06.23 16:46:00 -
[60]
Originally by: VanNostrum
Originally by: Gaius Kador Retribution
4xGatling Pulse / w Scorch - 1xSmall nosfII Webber SARII, 400 Tungsten, EANMII, Thermic Plate, Regenerative Membrane
RIGS: 2xTrimarks
I deal, therefore I am.
I sustain, therefore I am.
i couldnt fit this with maxed out skills
Where there is a will, there is a way ;) ----------------------------------------------
|
|
Alapesha
|
Posted - 2007.06.25 19:42:00 -
[61]
I just have one question really.
Why does the Wolf/Jaguar, have better all round shield resists covering each resist quite nicely where as all the other assault frigates are left out in the cold with a gaping hole in the EM area, and it gets the added fun of an extra low slot - and all my poor harpy has is an extra high slot... and its not even a weapon slot - i crai, well a little bit.
Can someone explain to me the logic behind this?
|
Hrin
Minmatar Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.06.25 20:29:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Alapesha I just have one question really.
Why does the Wolf/Jaguar, have better all round shield resists covering each resist quite nicely where as all the other assault frigates are left out in the cold with a gaping hole in the EM area, and it gets the added fun of an extra low slot - and all my poor harpy has is an extra high slot... and its not even a weapon slot - i crai, well a little bit.
Can someone explain to me the logic behind this?
Racial resists and racial enemies. Minmatar harden against Em and Thermal, the damage types of lasers. The amarr harden against kinetic and explosive.
It would perhaps be better to armor tank a wolf, fyi. 2 mid slots don't quite make a good pvp shield tank.
|
KD.Fluffy
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.06.25 21:17:00 -
[63]
Quote: I recently took out a rigged Harpy in my Thrasher... and my skills are far from perfect.
Liang
yeah, it was a pretty crap fit. Not much point to an AF with a destro with a damage bonus
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.25 22:16:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Alapesha I just have one question really.
Why does the Wolf/Jaguar, have better all round shield resists covering each resist quite nicely where as all the other assault frigates are left out in the cold with a gaping hole in the EM area, and it gets the added fun of an extra low slot - and all my poor harpy has is an extra high slot... and its not even a weapon slot - i crai, well a little bit.
Can someone explain to me the logic behind this?
The "logic" has been explained, but I haven't often heard somebody complain about how good Minni T2 resists are. Sometimes they are, no doubt: see Jag and Vaga, for instance. But usually it's quite the opposite, given the dominance of armor tanks in PvP.
Keep in mind also that kinetic and thermal are usually going to be the most common damage types anyway, PvP or E. I guess that doesn't help if you're dead set on say, running missions against Sansha. But you've always got the option of training other ships.
* * * 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 |
Cpt Branko
Guardian Heroes
|
Posted - 2007.06.26 09:32:00 -
[65]
I'd much rather have a Wolf with Enyo's resists. Having two holes in your armour resists is bad for an armour tanker.
What resists you like having up really depends on wether you're tanking shield or armour.
|
Rane Javoke
Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.26 19:00:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Cmdr Sy 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
fair enough, without overpowering them. Actually the resistance bonuses are totally useless, since as with any t2 ship the resistances should be built-in.
Also, bump for great justice!! Make AFs viable and at least equal to well-fitted pvp cruisers in all scenarios plz..
|
Cmdr Sy
IMPERIAL SENATE
|
Posted - 2007.06.26 23:48:00 -
[67]
I should clarify, I mean those resistance bonuses on top of their existing resistances.
Logoffs
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.06.26 23:56:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske 4. The Escort route. Completely rework them, and give them a unique ability to draw fire from protected ships with a special module.
You know, this is a great idea. In every other MMO, the tanks have some way to taunt and draw fire on themselves. But not in EVE.
-- Guile can always trump hardware -- |
Cpt Branko
Guardian Heroes
|
Posted - 2007.06.27 02:12:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske 4. The Escort route. Completely rework them, and give them a unique ability to draw fire from protected ships with a special module.
You know, this is a great idea. In every other MMO, the tanks have some way to taunt and draw fire on themselves. But not in EVE.
Not so in EVE, because EVE doesn't revolve around killing stupid NPCs, but rather players with brains...
Not a good idea, really. Just give the AFs 10% less weight and make the resists in-built, so they can get some sort of a useful bonus like all T2 ships.
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.27 03:05:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske 4. The Escort route. Completely rework them, and give them a unique ability to draw fire from protected ships with a special module.
You know, this is a great idea. In every other MMO, the tanks have some way to taunt and draw fire on themselves. But not in EVE.
Not really my idea. The "Escort Ship" name is CCP's own original idea of the ships, and the module is something I've heard talked about on these forums. Again though, I don't know how technically feasible it is. * * * 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 |
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.27 03:13:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske 4. The Escort route. Completely rework them, and give them a unique ability to draw fire from protected ships with a special module.
You know, this is a great idea. In every other MMO, the tanks have some way to taunt and draw fire on themselves. But not in EVE.
Not so in EVE, because EVE doesn't revolve around killing stupid NPCs, but rather players with brains...
[
To differentiate it from logistics ships, it would have to be a sort of "reverse ecm or damp". i.e., it would make a specific ship more difficult to target.
Quote: Just give the AFs 10% less weight and make the resists in-built, so they can get some sort of a useful bonus like all T2 ships.
Well, if you look at my original post, I sort of agree with you. That would be the most fun for me, as I like flying my glorified Rifters. The problem is that it still steps on the toes of Intys, Cruisers, and Destroyers, and would make T1 Frigs into pure rookie ships. It just shifts the problem instead of fixing it by giving AFs something different.
Uniqueness, uberness, or continued underdogness? that is the 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 |
MrRookie
Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L
|
Posted - 2007.06.27 04:55:00 -
[72]
I say give them resistance to NOS and nearly immunity at maxed skills instead of the current resitance bonus. Also smaller sig and boost the speed a bit, that way they could be the ultimate big ship killers in frig sized gangs. Seems like something special
Sig removed. Please email us at [email protected] if you would like to know why. -Conuion Meow
May I have pink next time plz? |
Cpt Branko
Guardian Heroes
|
Posted - 2007.06.27 09:46:00 -
[73]
Making them more resistant to the classic way of disabling small ships (NOS) is perhaps a OK thing to do.
I'd rather leave them as they are instead of inventing some annoying 'aggro' mechanic in relation to players.
If you want the 'escort' route, then think about this: what should they 'escort' against? If you want them to escort against inties, then just give them a 20% per level tracking bonus, while making their resists inbuilt. And a role-bonus: 25% decrease in gun sig resolution. They'd unrivalled anti-tackler escorts in a gang, then. It would mess up inties / T1 frigs badly, though. The Hawk is a good anti-interceptor escort as it stands, I hear.
I don't know what else makes sense to escort *against*.
However, I don't think that removing 10% off their mass would make them step on the toes of their interceptor cousins or T1 frigs, as they'd still have a lot more mass then the T1 frigs they're based on. The extra agility would quite possibly be a life-saver.
After all, let's compare the Wolf to the Rifter. The Wolf has 725000 extra mass. That's like sticking 3x400mm plate on a Rifter - don't you think that's a bit excessive? Can hardly qualify as 'stepping on the toes of interceptors' ;P
As for T1 frigs, even with the proper fourth bonus and the mass reduction, two well-fitted T1 frigs would still badly murder a typical AF, at a fraction of the cost.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |